Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

B.B.C. TELEVISION (MEDICAL PROGRAMMES)

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): Mr. Speaker with your permission, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement.
At Question Time on 26th February, 1958, I referred to the B.B.C.'s consultation with medical authorities about the programme "Your Life in Their Hands." This seems to have given rise to some misunderstanding. I would like to clear up this misunderstanding.
I am informed by the B.B.C. that the Corporation had had wide and detailed discussions with medical, surgical and nursing staffs both on the subject matter of the programmes as well as their method of presentation. Before the first broadcast, the B.B.C. held a conference. At this conference, representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians and members of the College of General Practitioners were present, together with other interested medical men and representatives of the medical Press.
Nothing occurred as a result of this informal consultation to suggest to the B.B.C. that its programmes would meet with opposition from the bodies concerned or that the Corporation ought not to proceed with its plans. Correspondence after the first broadcast from members of the medical profession and others confirmed the B.B.C. in this view.
I regret that the information I previously passed on to the House implied a more formal degree of consultation between the B.B.C. and the medical bodies mentioned as well as a formal expression of their subsequent appreciation of the programme. This appears to have arisen from a misunderstanding between my Department and the Corporation.
I am glad to have had this opportunity of explaining more fully the degree of consultation between the B.B.C. and the medical bodies concerned before the programme began.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We on this side of the House accept wholeheartedly the statement which the Postmaster-General has made. It is in the best traditions of this House that, when an ambiguity or a mis-statement is made, the Minister concerned—or, in fact, any other Member —should take the earliest opportunity to put the matter right. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman that he has done so.

Orders of the Day — METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT, 1839 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend Section 54 of the 1839 Act, which fixes at a maximum of 40s. the penalty which may be levied for certain offences, but the Bill relates only to those offences described in paragraph 13 of Section 54 of the 1839 Act. In that paragraph, these offences are described as follows:
Every Person who shall use any threatening, abusive, or insulting Words or Behaviour with Intent to provoke a Breach of the Peace, or whereby a Breach of the Peace may be occasioned.
The first thing we have to consider is what sort of behaviour is meant by the words "threatening, abusive, or insulting". The sort of behaviour which I had in mind when considering the Bill can be summed up in the one word "hooliganism". When the Short Title of my Bill was first announced last November, some people picked it up as an anti-Teddy boy Bill. I am bound to say that I had Teddy boys in mind. They are included within the framework of paragraph 13, but it is not exclusive to them.
What we have to consider in a matter of this kind is, first, whether offences of this nature are on the increase; and secondly, if they are on the increase—or, indeed, if they are not on the wane—whether the maximum penalty of 40s. is enough. We know from our own experience in the constituencies and by reading the newspapers that offences of this kind are tending to increase very considerably.
I obtained from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan Area figures showing what has been happening in recent years. I have the figures of proceedings under paragraph 13 of Section 54 of the 1839 Act for the last three years, 1955, 1956 and 1957. In those three years the charges brought have been in 1955, 3,261; in 1956, 3,400, a small increase; but in 1957 the figure had risen to 4,294, an increase in charges brought

under that paragraph (13) of nearly one-third, nearly 32 per cent., in three years.
It is not without interest that of those total figures three-quarters relate to male persons and only the other one-quarter to female persons. The actual difference in number between the two sexes in 1957 was: males 3,399, females 895. It would appear that the female of the species in this respect at any rate is better behaved than the male.
The convictions obtained in respect of those charges are a very high proportion of the total charges brought. In the last year, 1957, of 4,294 charges made, 3,767 persons were convicted.
What is the reason for this—as I think —staggering increase in the number of offences of this kind? It is the fact—I think there is no doubt about this at all —that many of these offenders are minors. I do not think we should forget that the person who is 18 years old today spent the first six years of his or her life in the stress and anxiety of war time. Father was away, in uniform no doubt, possibly on some front many hundreds or thousands of miles from this country; mother very possibly was employed in a war factory on essential work; and possibly the family home was bombed. The childhood of these young people of today —some of their formative years—was spent in very difficult conditions indeed. During those years they lacked the guidance, the sympathy and the discipline of their parents.
I myself am old-fashioned in some ways. Perhaps that is why I sit on these benches and not on the benches opposite. I do not know. [Interruption.] There is no room today to join hon. Members opposite, as one can see. However, I just wonder whether the modern relaxation of the Victorian motto, "Spare the rod and spoil the child," has not gone a bit too far. I think those two are the main causes for the increase in this kind of behaviour. I would not myself refer to most of these cases as criminal cases at all. I think they indicate increased irresponsibility, decreased thought for others.
I talked of the Victorian motto, "Spare the rod and spoil the child". If one looks back fifty years one finds that a phrase used quite frequently was "the submerged tenth", a reference to those


children who were living in homes in which there was an appalling degree of poverty, the sort of circumstances no one would tolerate in this country today. But that phrase certainly has no true application in 1958. No question of a submerged tenth could possibly arise.
Indeed, I have no doubt whatsoever but that of those 4,294 offenders in 1957 the vast majority, if not all of them, were earning good wages or were potentially perfectly capable of doing so. As I say, those who are 18 years of age today had a difficult childhood. It may be a passing phase, and it may be that time will take us away from the era of the war babies and that we may see an improvement in the behaviour of young people as the years go by.
Meantime, however, it seems to me that we in this House have a double duty to perform. First of all we have to consider whether or not the penalty is a sufficiently high penalty for this kind of behaviour, and if we decide it is not sufficiently severe it is our duty to stiffen it, to increase it; and that for two reasons, first of all, to deter the potential wrongdoer, and secondly to protect the public.
The first obvious consideration, I think, is the change in the value of money since this maximum penalty of 40s. was fixed. Forty shillings was appropriate 119 years ago. Is it appropriate today? In 1839, 40s. was probably a good week's wages, but in 1958 it probably is not as much as a good day's wages for a great many of the people who are prosecuted under Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act. It would appear that there is a very strong case on this ground alone for increasing the penalty.
What are the objects for which the penalties are imposed? As I have rather indicated already, it is a two-fold object, firstly, to deter the potential wrongdoer, and secondly, by so doing, to protect the public. Just as the value of money has changed since 1839 so has modern thinking about the object of penalties, and today our thoughts are directed considerably more towards the reform of a wrongdoer or of a potential wrongdoer than merely to retribution. There is no doubt at all in my mind but that to a certain type of person, who is by no means rare, a fine of 40s. is something to boast about.
I was rather staggered the other day to read in a newspaper article that one of the reasons why this ersatz musician, Elvis Presley, has such a hold over too many teenagers is a queer kind of aura about him because at one stage in his career he spent, as I understand, twelve months in an American State prison. I do not know whether that is true or not. I was absolutely amazed to see it. However, there is no doubt at all but that to a certain type of person the very fact of being fined 40s. and the ability of being able to incur it is something to boast about and not something to be ashamed of.
However, as I said earlier, I have very much in mind, in considering this paragraph of Section 54, that this sort of person is not really a criminal type of person. He is the sort of person who wants to show off. He has the exhibitionist mentality. If that be true, as I believe it to be, then a 40s. penalty means very little, and so the possibility must exist that that person will commit the offence again, and possibly it may be a worse offence next time.
In other words, if the 40s. shock to the system is not great enough, the person goes down hill and may indeed develop into a criminal, and the public, therefore, faces the dangers of serious crime. On the other hand, if the shock to the system on the first occasion is sufficiently great, that person will not commit the offence again, a potentially criminal career is halted, and the public will be protected.
I have taken a great deal of advice about this Bill, and it has been suggested to me that the Public Order Act, 1936, already prescribes very much severer penalties for this type of behaviour and that there is, therefore, no necessity for the Bill. I am not a lawyer, and I am venturing this morning upon a legal subject, and so I speak with some decree of bated breath, but I do not accept the suggestion that the Public Order Act, 1936, is an Act which can be used in cases such as I have in mind.
If one looks at the Title of the Public Order Act one sees that it is an Act
to prohibit the wearing of uniforms in connection with political objects and the maintenance by private persons of associations of military or similar character …


It may well be that the kind of clothing worn by Teddy boys and Teddy girls might conceivably be described as a uniform, but I do not think they themselves could be described as associating in a military manner. I do not think any serving person, or anyone who had served in one of the Services would suggest that, but the Long Title of the 1936 Public Order Act concludes with these words:
… and to make further provision for the preservation of public order on the occasion of public processions and meetings and in public places.
If one looks at Section 5 of that Act, one finds there language almost identical with that of Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act, because Section 5 of the 1936 Act reads:
Any person who in any place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour …
those words come straight out of the 1839 Act—
… with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.
Section 7 of the 1936 Act, where these offences are concerned, provides as a penalty
… imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
On the other hand, if one looks back to 1936, when the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, as he then was, introduced the Bill, and looks at the carefully chosen works which he used on that occasion, I doubt very much indeed whether it can be said that the sort of offence which I have in mind can really be the subject of a prosecution under the 1936 Act. On the occasion of the Second Reading of that Bill, Sir John Simon, referring to Clause 5, said:
Under this provision there may be cases such as some which have taken place within the memory of hon. Members—some which have recently been dealt with by Metropolitan police magistrates—in which the most violently abusive language has been used, say, in a Jewish quarter for the purpose of arousing racial feeling.
That is not the sort of offence which I have in mind at present. Later on, Sir John Simon said:
The only thing that remains is that at present even though the language may be used deliberately for the purpose of insulting

a section of the population or a religious view which is prevalent in the district where it is used, however serious a case may be and however serious the consequences, the maximum penalty under the Act of 1839 is 40s. In the case of a man who perhaps has a great organisation behind him a fine of 40s. is not enough." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1936; Vol. 317, c. 1363.]
I draw the attention of hon. Members to those words:
In the case of a man who perhaps has a great organisation behind him
That seems to indicate quite clearly what the then Home Secretary had in mind in connection with Clause 5 of the 1936 Bill, and that most certainly was not the Teddy boy behaviour or the hooliganism that I have in mind.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As probably the hon. Gentleman will remember, the 1936 Act was passed deliberately by this House to meet the special difficulties of the clashes which occured between Mosley's Fascists and Jewish residents living in the East End of London.

Mr. Stevens: I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) for supporting the case I was trying to make. I have referred to the 1936 Act because it was suggested to me that under that Act provisions already exist for imposing a heavier penalty, so that this Bill was not necessary. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The sort of thing I have in mind is not either Mosley's Fascists or Communists, but—I am sorry to use the words again, but they are convenient—the sort of Teddy boy gang, which is a vastly different proposition and composed of a different type of person.

Mr. Albert Evans: I quite follow what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. He says that the Public Order Act, 1936, was designed to deal with a situation such as that created by the Fascist organisation existing at that time. Has he searched the records to find out whether the Public Order Act has been used to prosecute in the cases which he has in mind?

Mr. Stevens: No; I think that is not so. Indeed, the figures which I gave earlier, showing that in 1957 there were 4,294 prosecutions under the 1839 Act,


indicate beyond any shadow of doubt that the 1839 Act is still essential, and that Section 54 (13) is still one under which prosecutions can take place for the sort of exhibitionism or showing off—the kind of offences which I have in mind.

Mr. Evans: Has the Public Order Act been used in any single case?

Mr. Stevens: Where appropriate, of course, it has been used, but not for the kind of offences that I have in mind, and further reference to it will not, I think, help us very much.
I took advice on this subject, and it was suggested to me that in this Bill I should include, as is included in the 1936 Act, the power to imprison the offender. It seemed to me that imprisonment was not appropriate for that type of offence—hooliganism and things of that sort—and certainly not on the occasion of the first offence. On the other hand, I was very strongly attracted by the suggestion made to me that power should be taken in the Bill to send offenders to detention centres.
The National Association of Probation Officers, from which I received valuable advice, suggested that power to send these people, particularly young people, to detention centres would give the opportunity for corrective training, and, after all, if we have in mind, as we undoubtedly ought to have, the desirability of reforming the offender, quite clearly we must seriously consider the possibility of sending him to a detention centre, where reformation can take place.
The power of the court to commit offenders to detention centres is governed by Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. There are certain conditions: firstly, that the offender is between 14 and 21 years of age; secondly, that if the offender is 17 years of age or over he should not previously have been sent, since he was 17, to a detention centre; and, thirdly, provided that every other means of dealing with the offence has been considered and has not been thought appropriate. These three conditions fit in completely with some of the ideas I have formed on this subject, but there is, in my view, a kind of Achilles heel in them.
The 1948 Act gives power to send an offender, on conviction to a detention

centre if, and only if, the offender, being adult, could be sent to prison. For reasons which I have given, I do not think that imprisonment for offences of this sort is appropriate. I feel that in a very large number of cases, imprisonment would do more harm than good. I think that in more cases than not it might convert a frightened and insecure person, an exhibitionist, into a criminal, rather than reform him, and for that reason alone I discarded the idea of imprisonment.
There is another and completely different consideration which was not in my mind at all when I considered Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act. It is that prosecutions for soliciting may be made under that Section. So far as common prostitutes are concerned, I discovered when making my studies of the 1839 Act that the law does not recognise such a thing as a prostitute, but only a common prostitute—a person, I understand, who has been established in law to be earning her living by that particular means. The initial prosecution for soliciting may be made under Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act. Quite obviously, as consideration is being given by the Government to the Wolfenden Report, it would be inexpedient at present to recommend imprisonment for that kind of offence.
Therefore, on balance, it seemed to me that imprisonment was not suitable. If that was so, the only thing that remained was the proposal, at present incorporated in the Bill, for increasing the penalty from a maximum of 40s. for each and every offence to a maximum of £10 for the first offence and £20 for subsequent offences. It seems to me that a £10 shock is quite a healthy shock even today, and there is also the fact that whereas, at present, if an offender is brought before a Metropolitan magistrate, the magistrate can only say, "Forty shillings" then and every other time, if there is an increased penalty of £20 for a second and subsequent offence the magistrate can say, "It is £10 this time but if you appear in the Metropolitan police district again, it may well be £20," which I think is a healthy kind of threat to hang over the head of offenders.
This Bill applies only to the Metropolitan police district, and it may well be


asked what a Portsmouth Member is doing interfering in the affairs of London. I accept that implied rebuke at once. I considered extending the Bill to apply throughout the country, and indeed the 1936 Act applies not only throughout England and Wales but also to Scotland, though Northern Ireland is excluded.

Mr. A. Evans: I may be the only representative of a London constituency in the House at the moment, but I would point out that I always understood that we not only represent constituencies but we are also Members for the country as a whole.

Mr. Stevens: I accept that, but I felt a little guilty as a Portsmouth Member in poaching on London's preserves. The point is that it is only in the Metropolitan police district that penalties for this kind of thing are fixed by statute. Outside the Metropolitan area, penalties are fixed by local bye-law and regulation, and it is not without interest that whereas in the Metropolitan area the maximum penalty is 40s., outside that area the penalty is very frequently, and, indeed, nearly always, a maximum of £5.
It seems to me that not only are there certain difficulties in making the Bill apply to England and Wales but that if it were applied that would take responsibilities away from local authorities, which we are loth to do unless it is absolutely necessary. It would also take away from them the power to impose penalties suitable to their own local conditions, which may well vary from one part of the country to another. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill and it then passes through its subsequent stages and becomes part of statute law, it may well be that what London does today, other parts of the country will do tomorrow.
When I had notice of my good fortune in the Ballot I considered whether I could do something to reverse the growing trend of these offences, about which I gave figures earlier. I believe that the increased penalties provided by the Bill will do something in that direction. I believe that they may deter some possible offenders and provide the public with some increase in protection. For these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

11.35 a.m.

Major W. Hicks Beach: I beg to second the Motion.
I confess that as a lawyer I have certain misgivings about the Bill, which I shall outline to the House. Before I proceed to do so, I am sure it would be the wish of both sides of the House that I should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) on the able way in which he has introduced the Bill. He said that he was not a lawyer, but I think I would be speaking on behalf of most members of the legal profession if I said that, having heard his opening remarks, we would certainly have welcomed him into that profession and that he would have made a great success of it. What is a loss to the legal profession is, of course, a gain to the accountancy profession.
I am frankly disappointed by the scope of the Bill. I should have liked to see it apply to all parts of the country, but I fully appreciate the difficulties of this matter, which arise from the question of local byelaws. I have been looking into the position in my own constituency, and I find that the byelaws in Cheltenham have not been revised since 1882. Curiously enough, they provide the same penalty as this Bill provides.
I have been into the matter very carefully and, with all due deference to my hon. Friend, I have great doubts whether it would not be possible for prosecutions of the nature which he has in mind to be brought under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1936. I want to give the House at least some of the evidence upon which I base my statement. In the Metropolitan Police Guide, Ninth Edition, 1939, there is a note of some importance.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1936, reads as follows:
Every person shall be liable to a penalty of not more than forty shillings who, within the limits of the Metropolitan police district shall, in any thoroughfare or public place, commit any of the following offences …
There follows a list of about sixty offences, and subsection (13) says:
Every person who shall use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned ….


An editorial footnote, which, of course, is not law, states under this subsection:
See Public Order Act, 1936, Section 5, as to insulting or abusive words or behaviour in a public place or at a public meeting. The maximum penalty is £50 and/or three months imprisonment.
That certainly leads me to think that there are those who are versed in the law who share my view that Section 5 of the 1936 Act would be and could be applied to the case which my hon. Friend has in mind.
I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said in his intervention that the intention of the 1936 Act was to deal with a specific situation which arose out of clashes which took place at that time.
The title of the Public Order Act, 1936, reads:
An Act to prohibit the wearing of uniforms in connection with political objects and the maintenance by private persons of associations of military or similar character; and to make further provision for the preservation of public order on the occasion of public processions and meetings in public places.
Admittedly it adds "and in public places". The heading of the Bill does not lay down the law; that appears in Section 5, which is extremely wide and reads as follows:
Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.
that is to say, an offence under the Act. If we turn to the definition Clause we find that the definition of a public place is as follows:
'Public place' means any highway, public park or garden, any sea beach, and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and includes any open space to which, for the time being, the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise:
I raise this point because, like all hon. Members, I am against unnecessary legislation. I hope the Minister will clarify my mind on this point. I hope I am wrong, because I am seconding this Motion, but it is an important point which should be clarified by the Minister.

Mr. A. Evans: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has taken his inquiries one stage further and en-

quired whether or not prosecutions for the offence he and his colleagues have in mind can be taken under the Public Order Act? I suggest that the sponsors of the Bill should have made that inquiry in order to satisfy themselves whether or not the Public Order Act can be used for the type of offence they have in mind.

Major Hicks Beach: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have made inquiries on that point and as far as my researches have revealed, no prosecutions for offences of the nature which my hon. Friend has in mind have taken place under Section 5 of that Act, but this does not mean that they could not do so. The point I want to get clear before giving unqualified support to this Bill—

Mr. Barnett Janner: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is seconding the Motion.

Major Hicks Beach: Yes, I am seconding it because I support the Bill in principle.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we know where the House stands? I have never yet heard a seconder of a Motion make reservations.

Mr. Speaker: It is unusual, but as a matter of order there is nothing inconsistent in what the hon. and gallant Member has said. After all, the important part of his speech, from the point of view of the House, is that he actually seconds the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Major Hicks Beach: I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I am seconding the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. Perhaps I may now give further evidence of the considerable doubt there is on this point. I do not say for the moment that a quotation from a newspaper is conclusive evidence, but I will quote from our local paper, the Cheltenham Echo.

Mr. Pannell: Is that a legal document?

Major Hicks Beach: Curiously enough, in its issue of Monday night, there was an article discussing this Bill


which supports my argument. It read as follows:
The position in Cheltenham is very different, however, for the prosecution can bring similar cases under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, 1936. By this a fine of £50 and/or three months' imprisonment may be ordered.
So in the view of the writer of that article my contention is correct, and all I am asking is that the Minister will clarify the position when he replies.
Having raised that hare, which I think is an important hare. I now turn to the general principle of increasing penalties. I endorse every word said by my hon. Friend to the effect that many penalties in Acts of Parliament are out of date today and should be increased. The whole object of the penalty is that it should be a deterrent, and I do not think that small penalties based on the situation in 1839 are sufficient deterrents. Therefore, I support this Bill in principle because it seeks to increase the penalties.
My hon. Friend mentioned juvenile delinquency, and one reason why I support increased penalties in the cases he has in mind is because the latest figures give cause for alarm. Juvenile delinquency is definitely increasing, as is shown from figures given in a Joint Circular from the Home Office and the Ministry of Education dated 20th July, 1953. I will quote from that circular because these figures should be carefully considered. Paragraph 8 reads as follows:
All those interested in the welfare of young people must be gravely concerned at the continued high level of juvenile delinquency, as exemplified in the following table of children and young persons found guilty of indictable offences in England and Wales …
Then follow figures showing that between 1948 and 1952 there was a slight decrease in juvenile delinquency in the case of boys between the ages of 8 and under 14 and a large increase between the ages of 14 and under 17, namely, from 15,980 to 17,093, and there has been a steady increase ever since. In the case of girls of similar age groups to those of boys, the figures remained steady.
I do not shrink from using the term "Teddy boys", which has been used this morning. In my opinion, the Teddy boy criminal needs a more effective deterrent than is available at present. The Act

applies not only to juvenile delinquents, but I have referred at length to Section 5, because undoubtedly heavier penalties are required for the Teddy boy type of delinquent.
We have all studied the Wolfenden Report, and I want to place on record that I disagree profoundly with most of its recommendations, particularly those affecting male offenders. There is, however, one useful paragraph in it about public opinion on penalties. Paragraph 16 reads as follows:
We have to consider the relationship between the law and public opinion. It seems to us that there are two over-definite views about this. On the one hand, it is held that the law ought to follow behind public opinion,—
That is the view I take.
—so that the law can count on the support of the community as a whole. On the other hand, it is held that a necessary purpose of the law is to lead or fortify public opinion. Certainly it is clear that if any legal enactment is markedly out of tune with public opinion it will quickly fall into disrepute. Beyond this we do not want to dogmatise, for on the matters with which we are called upon to deal we have not succeeded in discovering an unequivocal 'public opinion', and we have felt bound to try to reach conclusions for ourselves rather than to base them on what is often transient and seldom precisely ascertainable.
I read that because I am certain from the inquiries that I have made that public opinion as a whole believes that the deterrent of the penalties for Teddy boy offences at the moment is too small. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend's attempts to increase the penalties, and for this reason I hope very much that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
Public opinion is best ascertained by asking people what they think. I have had a great number of interesting letters on this subject from people who have, I know, given the matter very careful study, and I find that in every single case the view is held that the type of offence that we have in mind must be dealt with by increased penalties.
Subject to clarification of the position in respect of Section 5 of the 1936 Act, I give the Bill my full support and hope it will have a Second Reading. Frankly, however, I feel that several Amendments may well have to be introduced in Committee.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I listened with very considerable interest to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens). I compliment him upon the way in which he expressed his point of view, and also upon introducing this Measure. I think he will probably render a greater service than he realises by having introduced it.
I was a little worried about the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach). I was not sure whether he was supporting the Bill or endeavouring by faint praise to kill it. I think he is wrong in what he says. I do not think—I hesitate to say it about a fellow lawyer; it is difficult, particularly when a layman has introduced the Bill—that he need worry very much about having some duplication on the Statute Book. There are Acts which might not have been passed if people had known that previous Acts covered the circumstances. One never knows under which Act a prosecution will be taken. Consequently, if the Metropolitan Police choose to take action under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, instead of under the Public Order Act, 1936, the penalties available will be those laid down in the Metropolitan Police Act.
I should have preferred a little wider Bill, although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Langstone has probably been cautioned that the less he puts into his Bill the more likelihood there is of the Government accepting it. While I appreciate that difficulty, I think that if he had considered the provisions of Section LIV of the 1839 Act, he would have been rather intrigued and might have been persuaded to include some further paragraphs from the Section.
Section LIV is a very wide one, and includes a paragraph which the hon. Gentleman might have covered in the Bill. I do not know whether there is a possibility of his doing so later. It reads:
Every Person who, without the Consent of the Owner or Occupier, shall affix any Posting Bill or other Paper against or upon any Building, Wall, Fence, or Pale, or write upon, soil, deface, or mark any such Building, Wall, Fence, or Pale with Chalk or Paint, or in any other Way whatsoever, or wilfully break, destroy or damage any Part of any such Building, Wall, Fence, or Pale …
Other offences covered by the Section include prostitution, which might very

well be regarded as a matter in respect of which penalties should be increased.
Writing on walls is a very obnoxious practice; it creates a considerable amount of trouble and difficulty. Sometimes it amounts to insulting behaviour, particularly in the case of, for example, anti-Semitic and other offensive statements. Often these things are done on walls from which they cannot easily be erased. If they are done on private property, the owner may himself have to take steps to erase them. I do not suppose that in 1839 there was available the indelible writing material which is used these days. If the Bill can be extended in Committee, probably the Home Office would agree that some of the other provisions of the 1839 Act might be covered. It may be that what I have referred to amounts to insulting behaviour.

Mr. Stevens: I was about to ask the hon. Member whether the writing of anti-Semitic slogans would not constitute insulting behaviour or even threatening behaviour. I should have thought that was so.

Mr. Janner: I should not like to give an opinion on that straight away. In my capacity as a lawyer, I should probably have to ask my client to come back tomorrow so that I might in the meantime refer to any cases which might have been heard. However, I think that might well be so. The word "behaviour" was not referred to by the hon. Member or his hon. and gallant Friend.
In recent months I have been endeavouring in the House to secure the prohibition of the use of flick knives, and I propose to pursue the matter further. I am sorry to say that I opened a flick knife in the House and I was placed in a very serious position in that you, Mr. Speaker, could have insisted, I suppose, that I be put in the Tower. At any rate, I could have been thrown out of the House for opening the knife in the way that I did. Why? Because the very opening of the knife could itself have been a form of threat against an hon. Member. Let hon. Members imagine a person using such a knife as a form of threatening behaviour towards an individual. It would be absurd if proceedings were taken under an Act permitting a maximum penalty of only £2.


Other forms of behaviour which are of an insulting nature and are conducive to the commission of a breach of the peace are referred to in Section LIV. One paragraph reads:
… insulting Words or Behaviour with Intent to provoke a Breach of the Peace, or whereby a Breach of the Peace may be occasioned …
No one would deny that the opening of such an instrument as a flick knife in any place would be behaviour of such a nature that a breach of the peace would ultimately arise.
Violence and abusive language may be even more dangerous and more upsetting than the use of such an instrument or the threat to use it. The House will recollect that an attempt was made to introduce a Measure to prevent people from defaming a group. I speak with some knowledge of it, because my own religious denomination was involved. There was a view, although I could not accept it, that although it was essential that abuse of groups should be avoided if possible, there were certain difficulties in the way of legislation. Consequently, a person can abuse a group with impunity. There is no method by which he can be stopped. He can say things about a group which he may not say about an individual and in such terms that they may lead to the most serious consequences to the group as a result of these views being spread. If action were taken under the Act as it stands the only penalty would be a fine of 40s.
I am not a believer in imposing heavy sentences. In my view, to a reasonable person the fact that he has to appear before a court and is fined is a deterrent for the future. In many cases, where decent, respectable people are involved—and they form the vast majority of people in this country—the very fact that they have to appear in court at all, even though the fine may be only 5s. or 10s., is sufficient deterrent. The very fact of going into court and of being accused of a minor offence is objectionable to them, and they feel unhappy about it.
On the other hand, we have the problem of the young group of hooligans who today are making life intolerable for their fellow young people and who, for the sake of hooliganism itself, penetrate not only into neighbourhoods but into dance halls and interfere with the normal,

healthy and reasonable pastimes of their fellow young men and women. This ought to be stopped, and it ought to be punished by more than the threat of a £2 fine.
For cases which do not come within that or similar categories the court will still have and should exercise the discretion of being reasonable and not imposing a fine. It can even bind people over or use such provisions as exist for the probation of offenders, in which I believe and which, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and anyone else who has to do with these matters realise are extremely important. Such provisions should be used as substantially as possible.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham will not feel uneasy and will not be unable to sleep tonight because of this Bill. I think that the Bill can do no harm. The possibility of a higher penalty should be available and it might help considerably.

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Remnant: May I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) for three reasons—not only on his luck in the Ballot, but on his choosing this Bill to help the police and on the extremely able and clear way in which he has put the case for it. I hope I shall not start a rift or widen any difference which may exist between an accountant and the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) who is a lawyer. I am not versed in either profession, except in so far as I have been advised that if I wish to understand what the law means I should consult one lawyer only, because if I consult two I shall be given two entirely different opinions.

Mr. Janner: May I interrupt the hon. Member to offer my apologies for not remaining in the Chamber to hear his speech? Unfortunately, I cannot remain.

Mr. Remnant: I appreciate that apology and understand the position.
When he goes to two lawyers it is difficult for the layman to understand the position, except that probably the right answer is that it would have been better to have reached his own decision and certainly much cheaper than going to a lawyer.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham said that the Bill was not necessary because the appropriate action could have been taken under the Public Order Act. Surely the point is that it was not taken under that Act. It was taken under the Metropolitan Police Act, which suggests that in the view of those concerned the Metropolitan Police Act is much more convenient and suitable to deal with the offences in question. If that is accepted, then, despite the parts of that Act which give too small a power of punishment, it is right and proper that the House should address itself to the appropriate Sections of the Metropolitan Police Act and put the powers of punishment into proper relation with the value of money today.
One cannot but make comparisons between the punishment for the offence of exceeding the speed limit and that for other offences for which the Act is used. Admittedly a man who exceeds the speed limit has his driving licence endorsed, too, but the fine is almost universal at 40s. and if it is a first offence the driver may get away with it altogether. To me, the two types of case are not comparable at all.
I share the doubts of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr Janner) whether the Bill is wide enough. Having been fortunate myself once in the Ballot, I realise that one wishes to see the Bill one introduces placed on the Statute Book, and one is therefore tempted, if low down on the list, to select a non-controversial Bill, and, if high on the list, to select one which is likely to raise the least objection. Nevertheless, I think that either now or later, and not necessarily on this Bill, the House will have to consider other aspects of insulting behaviour and assaults and to consider whether in its view—I say this with all respect to those excellent people, our magistrates—the magistrates use the powers available to them in appropriate cases to an extent which is likely to deter the offender from doing it again.
Perhaps I may be forgiven if I explain what I have in mind. A man in a public house may have come from other public houses and may have had slightly too much to drink. The licensee of the house may decline to serve him, and he may then commit a savage assault upon the licensee. Very often his friends in the house will create a disturbance. He is then

fined 40s. That is a grossly inadequate penalty for that type of offence. If the Bill meets with the Government's approval, I suggest that between now and the Committee stage my hon. Friend should see whether it is possible to table appropriate Amendments which would have the effect of widening its scope by covering a greater number of offences.
It is remarkable how often a Bill is introduced by a private Member to render assistance to the police. I should imagine that my recollection in this matter goes back rather further than that of most hon. Members. I recall that in the early years of this century it was a private Member who ultimately persuaded the House to give the police one day's rest in seven. That private Member was my father. I know how his interest in the police from that moment onwards was very greatly appreciated by the force.
I consider that he was right, as my hon. Friend is right. The police form the basis of our system of law and order. If they are not protected while carrying out their duties in respect of both major and minor offences the basis of our system is likely to disappear. In the last few years I have had the good fortune to meet many people from abroad. I have been able to give them hospitality and, on occasion, a night's lodging. There are two things which have nearly always impressed them about this country. First, they are impressed by the fact that although we are so orderly our police are unarmed. Most people would agree that the fact that we are orderly is partly due to the fact that the police are unarmed. But if an attack on the police—not necessarily a physical attack—is not checked in its initial stages our system of law and order, upheld by unarmed police, may to some extent go by the board.
Secondly, people from some of the European countries are impressed by the fact that a seller of evening newspapers is quite prepared to leave his pile of newspapers unattended, knowing that people who want to purchase the newspapers will put down their 2½d. when taking them, or give themselves any necessary change, and that when he returns he will find the right money there.

Mr. C. Pannell: He usually finds he has some money over.

Mr. Remnant: Yes—very likely he has some money over. That is an example of the honesty of our people, and it arises from our system of law and administration of justice.
Even if I were critical of the Bill because it does not go far enough, I would say that it cannot possibly do any harm and it might do quite a lot of good. If the House is not very largely attended, I think that we might be allowed to assume that most hon. and right hon. Members have indicated their approval of the Bill by their absence. I wish it good luck.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I do not share the opinion of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) as to the reason for the sparse attendance in the House today. When people mention the sparse attendance they should remember that many hon. Members have just finished a long sitting. The proceedings on the Army Estimates continued almost until four o'clock this morning. After having considered the imponderables of the Army in different parts of the earth it is reasonable that the hon. Members concerned might leave the Metropolitan Police area to those people who have an interest in it.

Mr. Remnant: I was not intending to be critical of hon. Members.

Mr. Pannell: I do not suggest that the hon. Member was. I am merely putting the facts on record for the benefit of anybody who might hear, because it is sometimes felt that a sparse attendance in the House on Friday morning indicates that Members are not being very assiduous in their duties.
The point that intrigues me is the reason why the hon. Member for Lang-stone (Mr. Stevens) introduced the Bill. He admits that he is not a Londoner. He comes from Portsmouth, which is a fairly lawless place on occasions.
I remember that when I first invested in an Austin Seven I took delivery of it on a Saturday afternoon. My wife said, "Where are we going?" I said, "We will go to the Isle of Wight." We were then young enough to think of going to any place. We got as far as Portsmouth and went into an hotel. Afterwards, when I was telling my friends about this triumphal tour, they asked me

where I had stayed in Portsmouth, and when I mentioned the name of the hotel, they said that a sailor had slit a woman's throat there a week before. It therefore seems to me that Portsmouth might need a Bill of this sort more than London.
The hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) was very hesitant in seconding the Bill, and he had many reservations to make. I am surprised to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department here this morning: I expected to see the Home Secretary after his recent experience of public disorder north of the Tweed. It was not Teddy boys who set about the Home Secretary; it was university students.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I would remind the hon. Member that the Home Secretary has no responsibility for public order in Scotland.

Mr. Pannell: It seems to me that the hon. Member has no responsibility for a sense of humour. At any rate, I should have thought that the Home Secretary would be able to tell us at first hand about public disorder, having experienced it north of the Tweed. He could have brought his weighty intellect to bear upon the question of how it should be dealt with in the Metropolitan Police District. I have never seen in London such scenes of disorder as occurred, according to reports, in connection with the Home Secretary's reception in Glasgow. He stood up to it for a long time, but he could not speak.
We all regret what happened to him there. It is an absolute disgrace that a public man should be submitted to this sort of treatment. I think that the chairman should have got off the platform at the earliest opportunity in order to protect his guest. I can appreciate the difficulty of the Home Secretary, being a guest, but I think that he would have been well advised to consider his own dignity, and that of the House, not by standing up to that sort of insult but by getting out, and I hope that he will do so in future. People who treat their guests in that way ought also to be treated with contempt.
This brings home to my mind very forcibly the fact that the police and those


charged with the conduct of public order usually have one standard for students and another for Teddy boys. This is not the sort of thing that would have been tolerated by the police in regard to members of my union when demonstrating for increased wages on the Clyde. Everybody knows what happened in Glasgow in the past. A very revered hon. Member of this House, the late David Kirkwood, was, of course, submitted to a good deal of brutality by the police when demonstrating on behalf of my union many years ago.
I say to the Joint Under-Secretary of State—and he might pass it on to his chief—that, generally speaking, it is not only the insult to the Home Secretary that matters, but the fact that the public generally do not like this sort of thing, and that it is something that should be stopped. Though we are speaking about this limited Bill which deals only with the Metropolitan Police area, a similar disturbance happened in Liverpool only a few days before.

Mr. Speaker: Though I may have every desire to permit a wide discussion on the matter, I think that the hon. Member ought to come a little nearer to the Metropolitan Police area, to which the Bill refers. I do not think that Scotland comes into it, or Liverpool for that matter.

Mr. Pannell: The Bill, of course, amends Section 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and I should have thought that my remarks were relevant, bearing in mind that the Metropolis is the place to which so many provincials come. There ought to be some sort of uniform order throughout the country. I am trying to make the point, seeing that the hon. Member for Langstone and the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham have addressed themselves to increased penalties in London, that the Bill is probably misconceived. I think we ought to use the opportunities under the Bill to bring in legislation which will affect more turbulent parts of the country.
I want to make only one other reference to the matter. I know that the antecedents of the Chair must never be referred to, however lurid, and lest you think that I am being unfair to those north of the Tweed, Mr. Speaker, I

would refer to the incident at Liverpool. There, again, we have an example of students breaking up a matinee performance for the benefit of crippled and spastic children and where people's enjoyment was completely wrecked. I should have thought—

Sir Eric Errington: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that as far as the occasion when the theatre performance was broken up in Liverpool is concerned, that, of course, was not in a public place within the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Pannell: I fully appreciate that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman with his legal training will not put forward the idea that, though it may not be a public place within the meaning of the Act as lawyers understand it, it is still not a public place of entertainment as the public understand it. I should have thought that a place in which 1,200 people were gathered was a place where public disorder could occur, and where on this occasion public disorder did occur, and that it was a form of public disorder that we all regret.
On the other hand, I think it worth while referring to this sort of thing because, as I say, a provincial hon. Member is proposing in the Bill to deal only with London. I have an interest in the matter because among those representing Leeds I have probably a better title to speak for London than some others. After all, I am an Essex boy, a near-Cockney, domiciled in Kent, and I represent a Yorkshire constituency.

Mr. Stevens: I have even a better title than that. I was born within the sound of Bow Bells.

Mr. Pannell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He probably believes, with the poet, that he who is tired of London is tired of life, and, consequently, he has had to take himself to Portsmouth.
The last time that I saw celebrations in Trafalgar Square on New Year's Eve —and this was confirmed by someone else—it seemed to me that the police were far tougher on the Teddy boys than on the students. Students, somehow, appear to be allowed a licence in this country that other people are not. I hold no brief for Teddy boys in this sort of business, and I shall support the


Bill in so far as I support public order. I fully appreciate that many of the penalties of the Act of 1839 have become thoroughly outmoded. When one reads Sections of that Act one realises the change in climate since that time. I will not read those parts of the Act which have already been read by the hon. Gentleman opposite and which could apply to today. Section 54 (14) of the Act states:
Every Person, except the Guards and Postmen belonging to Her Majesty's Post Office in the Performance of their Duty, who shall blow any Horn or use any other noisy Instrument, for the Purpose of calling Persons together, or of announcing any Show or Entertainment, or for the Purpose of hawking, selling, distributing, or collecting any Article whatsoever, or of obtaining Money or Alms.
Those sort of things have no relevance today, but, apparently, offenders against this provision were liable to a penalty under the Act.
Section 54 (16) states:
Every Person who shall wilfully and wantonly disturb any Inhabitant by pulling or ringing any Door-bell or knocking at any Door without lawful Excuse, or who shall wilfully and unlawfully extinguish the Light of any Lamp.
I could imagine Guy Fawkes Day in certain provincial places, including Leeds.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman will note that the next subsection deals with the case of the person who
shall fly any Kite or play at any Game.

Mr. Pannell: That is so. The subsection reads:
Every Person who shall fly any Kite or play at any Game to the Annoyance of the Inhabitants or Passengers,"—
passengers of what?—
or who shall make or use any Slide upon Ice or Snow in any Street or other Thoroughfare, to the common Danger of the Passengers.
I suppose that in those days that referred to horse traffic. And so we could go on. Of course, we have to bear in mind the changed value of money.
When we consider the Public Order Act we particularly have in mind the difficulties that occurred in the inter-war years, particularly in 1936, when Sir Oswald Mosley made his famous, infamous or notorious march on the East End of London with the deliberate inten-

tion of stirring up the populace. I do not want to be unkind to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but there were one or two of them who had their feet in that camp and who, no doubt, have since regretted it. I think that most of us in this country would still be against any form of political uniform and any sort of uniformed demonstration. We wish to leave uniforms where they belong, to the people in Her Majesty's Forces and other public servants.
I should like the Home Secretary to say a word on another point. I hope it will be clearly laid down that this Bill will make no difference at all to any penalties that may arise from picketing in industrial disputes, because it sometimes seems to those concerned with the matter that public order Acts of different sorts are invoked in times of industrial dispute and excitement.
Though I may have appeared to be a trifle officious when I began my speech, I wish to say that we have had a long tradition of public order in this country. Our people are brought up in that tradition. I have never understood that an unarmed police force which is possible in this country is necessarily a possibility in other parts of the world. Our police force is the best in the world not simply because it is unarmed, but because it happens to be the best sort of police force. No one going to certain cities in America could imagine that public order could be maintained in them with an unarmed police force.
It appears to me that the public are set a bad example when young gentlemen who should know better, and who have received the benefit of the best education the country can provide, behave abominably towards distinguished public men who are their guests. It is difficult to convince Teddy boys that they should behave when so much publicity is given to that kind of conduct. After all, law and public order are based on equity and the fact that there is justice as between man and man irrespective of the social class to which they may belong. Only by that means can we maintain the tradition of public order of which we are so proud.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: There have been many occasions when I have had the privilege of following the hon. Member


for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) or he has followed me, but today we may reach a greater degree of unanimity than on previous occasions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lang-stone (Mr. Stevens) on producing this small Bill which may cause great repercussions in the future.
I agree with a number of things said by the hon. Member for Leeds, West particularly about the difference in the attitude adopted towards Teddy boys and those who are regarded as more highly educated. Students who are enjoying the benefits of a higher education should be prepared to set a higher standard. We must take account of the fact that the general public feel there should be no abusive or insulting behaviour by the members of any section of the community.
As well as being the nuclear age this is also the age of the "angry young man." My hon. Friend instanced a number of reasons for that. Many of these young men were born and lived their early years in upset conditions due to the war in which this country was engaged and, consequently, their family life was affected. They did not have the steady and protected childhood which others of us were fortunate to enjoy. Many "angry young men" feel that they have an excuse to flout the accepted rules of behaviour. Their general attitude may be summed up as, "We did not ask to be born. Our fathers have placed a burden upon us and it is up to them to do something about it. We have no responsibility at all, and we may criticise action which has been taken rather than try to build up some form of self-discipline."

Mr. C. Pannell: Does the hon. Gentleman think there is any difference between the "angry young men" of today and the "angry young men" of thirty years ago, except that they were angry for different reasons and were probably better at saying what they had to say than the "angry young men" of today?

Mr. Mawby: Thirty years ago I was at an age when I did not completely understand what was going on. Therefore, I can discuss only the situation as I see it now. Older members of the community may say that there is nothing new about it.
Today the psychological alibi is trotted out by many people. They use it as an excuse to break the laws of society and indulge in behaviour which would not have been accepted years ago. In my opinion, self-discipline can be achieved only by having the right type of discipline during the formative years. I disagree with many learned authorities who argue that if you strike a child it is possible that in the future the child may murder his grandmother because of some psychosis resulting from the blow. In my opinion, we have gone too far in that direction.
Bringing a person to court and imposing a fine on him may be a blunt-edged weapon, but it is the only one available and we must make certain that its use will deter other people from offending in the future. That presents us with a problem, not only in respect of this offence, but of other offences which it would be out of order for me to discuss now.
The question was asked why an hon. Member representing a Portsmouth constituency should present a Bill which affects only the Metropolis. It has been observed that what is said in Manchester today is said in the rest of the country next week. If this Bill becomes an Act, it is possible that what London does today the rest of the country will do tomorrow. A standard will be set for other parts of the country to follow. At present, the difference in the amount of a fine which may be imposed in the Metropolitan area and a fine imposed in a provincial area is such that it is cheaper to come to London to create a disturbance. That may be too cynical an argument to pursue, but if this Bill does anything, it lays down a criterion for London which most of the provinces could follow.

12.40 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not intend to intervene for more than a few minutes, for two very good reasons. The first is that the Bill deals with a very narrow point and, so far as I know, there is no opposition to it from any quarter of the House.

Sir E. Errington: I have not been able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, but I would inform the right hon. Gentleman that I am very much against the Bill.

Mr. Hall: I do not object to that interruption. It will be for the hon. Member to voice his objection presently. My point is nevertheless valid that, apart from one or two exceptions, and I will go no further than that, there is no objection to the principle underlying the Bill. In fact, all speakers up till now have indicated that most of us are sorry that the Bill does not go further than it does.
My second reason for rising now and for hoping that the debate will not be too prolonged is that the Bill is to be followed by another which seeks, by the will of the House, to give increases to certain categories of workers who are disabled. They are suffering in one direction from the drop in value of money just as fines, in the other direction, are less than they should be because of the drop in the value of money.
We should like to see the Bill extended, but that may be impossible in Committee because the Preamble is worded rather tightly. That, however, is a point that can be looked at when we come to further action on the Bill.

Mr. Stevens: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I should be obliged if he would indicate in what way he would like to see the scope of the Bill widened.

Mr. Hall: I was thinking of our ability or inability to extend it to other parts of the country. Beyond doubt we shall have to confine it, whatever else we may be able to do with the Bill, to the Metropolitan Police District.
I would like to raise a point which was raised initially by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) and which he hoped the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office would answer. The hon. and gallant Member took the view that the Public Order Act, 1936, probably covered the kind of offence which the promoter of this Bill seeks to cover, and he sought an assurance one way or the other from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether that was so.
The point should be cleared up. If the Public Order Act, 1936, covers offences of this kind, the proposed £50 fine for a Teddy boy is rather excessive. If that Act does apply, it is time that something was done to clarify the position. It is

true, as the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and other hon. Members have pointed out, that juvenile delinquency has increased. There is no doubt that it is giving considerable perturbation and worry to chief constables and others who are responsible for public order. The hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham said he thought that to increase the penalty in this way was the only way to deal with adolescent offences.
I do not altogether agree, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State also will not agree. There are additional ways of approaching the problem. The adolescents of the country are, on the whole, very fine types. If any of them go wrong—some of them do—it is not too late at that stage to do anything about it. We have not yet reached the kind of position that exists in the United States, and I hope that we never shall. By providing clubs and otherwise seeking to give a new and more creative outlet for adolescent energies, we shall do far more than by increasing penalties in Bills of this kind.
I welcome the Bill on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House. We hope it will pass. Our only regret is that it does not go as far as we would like it to do.

12.47 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I am very unhappy about the Bill. I do not want to refer at any length to the various problems facing those who administer justice. Some reference to them has been made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). It seems a peculiar commentary on our system of education, by which everybody who has ability can reach the highest educational institutions, the universities, that at the same time we do not seem to achieve education in decent behaviour. The thought is always in my mind that the people who benefit from the State education system to the extent that people of that character do should learn the fundamental canons of decent behaviour.
There is a principle in the Bill which ought very carefully to be considered by the House. The Bill, like the man who was seen out with a lady other than his wife, is only a little one, but it is important. It picks out certain offences and proposes to increase the penalties. A very great deal of consideration—if


I may say so with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens)—should be given to this problem. The words,
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in any thoroughfare or public place
cover a very large number of offences. The two main bodies of people who transgress are prostitutes and Teddy boys. Among the latter is supposed to be the "angry young man." Why he should be angry, considering some of the benefits be gets in existing conditions. I am not quite certain.
The point that we have reached in our criminal views is that we have not to consider increasing fines or, indeed, necessarily increasing penalties. That was the point made by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). This is part of the criminal law—we have to consider whether we can deal with it in such a way as to reform those who transgress against it. Although I do not agree with many of the views expressed in the Wolfenden Report, there is a thought in paragraph 277 of that Report which the House ought to have in mind. It refers to the alternative of imprisonment for third or subsequent offences. The paragraph says:
For this reason, therefore, that increased and even graduated fines might in themselves prove inadequate, the sanction of imprisonment must in our opinion be available, in the last resort, for repeated offences.
The Report is dealing with prostitutes only, but in my submission this might just as well apply to Teddy boys. The paragraph goes on:
In making this recommendation we have two purposes in mind. The first is straightforward deterrence.
I leave out some unimportant words. Then the paragraph says:
But equally important is the other strand in our thinking, which may be called the reformative element in punishment. We do not deceive ourselves into thinking that a short term of imprisonment is likely to effect reform where repeated fines have failed. But we believe that the presence of imprisonment as a possible punishment may make the courts anxious to try, and the individual prostitutes more willing to accept, the use of probation in suitable cases. As the law at present stands, a probation order can be made in the case of an offender over fourteen years of age only if the offender expresses willingness to comply with its imposition and conditions. Since, as is at present the case, the alternative to probation is a fine of forty shillings, the prostitute …

I would add the Teddy boy—
frequently declines even to see the probation officer. This is regrettable, for we feel that many women who have adopted a life of prostitution could be led to renounce it by enquiry into their personal problems and by advice and treatment which the probation service is well equipped to give them. If the alternative to a probation order were not an insignificant fine but the possibility of ultimate imprisonment, it is probable that some of those who now refuse the help of the probation officer would be more ready to respond to the opportunity of probation if it were offered. The possibility that help of this kind might he accepted by some even of the most persistent offenders seems to us to be a strong argument for including imprisonment as an ultimate penalty.
My opposition to this Bill is quite definite and quite clear. I do not think it enough to make a £2 fine £10 and then to make it £20. That is quite inadequate for dealing with problems and difficulties which exist in the country today. Developments which have occurred since 1839 and since the previous Act have caused a much more enlightened view on these matters.
A Bill that stops short at the fine not exceeding £20 is quite inadequate to deal with these problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that disturbers of the peace are not confined to any one class of society, but I think disturbances are increasing all the time. The problem of the prostitute, with which we should have no doubt this Bill is intended to deal, ought to be approached from a much more enlightened and, if I may say so without disrespect, a more intelligent and up-to-date view.
This is a small Bill because it deals only with London. It is a small Bill because it deals only with a very limited set of circumstances, but the principle behind it is of vital importance to the administration of justice. We have built up a magnificent probation service. I have the privilege of sitting on a bench. We try to use the probation service to the absolute maximum. By doing so I think we get many cases of reformation which otherwise would become desperate and hopeless.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I thought this Bill and its passage to the Statute Book would do anything to harm or prevent the probationary system and probation officers doing their job, I would be


against it, but, as I understand it, it will not affect that work at all.

Sir E. Errington: As I understand the position, magistrates are in the difficulty that if there is no provision for imprisonment there is no possibility of using the probation service properly and to the full. This is an indication of the difficulty we get when we pick out a particular item from the criminal law and seek to deal with just that one matter. I hope I have made clear to the House the importance of this question. If I am correct in my view that the probation system cannot be adequately used to deal with the two very important purposes I have mentioned, the Bill is useless and ought to be rejected.

12.58 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: My attitude to this Bill is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). I am not opposed to what is proposed by the Bill, but I think it is defective. By being defective it not only misses an opportunity but may actually work some harm, for the reasons my hon. Friend has given. I think the quotation he made from the Wolfenden Report is exactly in point in this connection. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) on his good fortune in winning a somewhat higher place in the Ballot than I did, my Bill being third in the list today, and also on his eloquence in introducing this Bill. I am bound to tell him, however, for the reasons I have mentioned, that I am not persuaded that the Bill is the right remedy to deal with Teddy boys.
That is not the matter about which I want to address the House. If hon. Members examine the Bill, they will find a certain discrepancy between the Long Title and the body of the Bill, a discrepancy between title and text. One is rather apt to find that in Bills introduced under machinery for Private Members' Bills. We have to produce a Title first, and the Bill comes some time afterwards. It is rather like the prospective parents who put down the name of their expected son for an educational establishment and then had to send a telegram to say, "Many regrets. John is Joan." It often happens with us private Members

that we put down a Long Title but that when we draft the Bill it is not easy to get within the Long Title exactly what we had intended to set out.
In this case, the body of the Bill refers to paragraph 13 of Section 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. The Long Title refers to the whole of Section 54. Although there are other words, they do not apply to any particular paragraph. Indeed, they are equally applicable to paragraph 11, which deals with common prostitutes. The Bill, therefore, is effective to cover that aspect, and it could be so amended in Committee.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Mr. Glenvil Hall indicated dissent.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have no doubt that what I am saying is correct.

Mr. Hall: All I meant was that the Preamble is simply an indication of what is to follow. As the Preamble is broader than the actual enacting words, it would be perfectly in order to amend it in Committee. I meant no more than that.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is exactly my point. Although the Bill itself is somewhat narrow, it could be amended in Committee to include a great deal more. There is no saying that the Committee might not see fit to make such Amendments.

Mr. Stevens: My hon. Friend is much more experienced in these matters than I am, but would not the first words of the Long Title—"Amend section fifty-four"—be governed by the purpose, which also is stated in the Long Title? The purpose is clearly stated as
increasing the maximum penalty for threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the nub of paragraph 11 of Section 54, of which I wish to speak, is the question of annoyance, to which these words would, I think, precisely refer. On reading the Long Title of the Bill, I thought that my hon. Friend was dealing with prostitutes and not with Teddy boys.
Apart from that, what is true of the one class is to some extent true of the other. They are related problems.


Indeed, they are referred to in almost consecutive paragraphs of Section 54 of the 1839 Act. In this connection, it is of the utmost relevance to consider what was said in the Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution. Various paragraphs of the Report have been referred to, but the one which I consider to be most in point is paragraph 275. I make no apology for reading parts of it to the House.
Paragraph 275 states:
The present maximum fine is forty shillings, for the first or any subsequent offence. This penalty seems to us quite inadequate, in two ways. The amount of the fine was fixed over a hundred years ago, when forty shillings was a not inconsiderable sum. We think that this amount should be brought more into line with the considerable change in monetary values since it was first fixed.
I quite agree with that proposition, but it bears out the point which I have just been making that we cannot alter the maximum for paragraph 13 of Section 54 without at least seeing that similar alterations are made in the case of other and similar offences.
The Wolfenden Committee continued:
Further, it is apparent from the figures of convictions fifty years ago that repeated fines of the same amount, though then an appreciable one, proved futile as a deterrent. They would, in our view, prove equally futile today, even at a higher rate than forty shillings. We therefore believe that if the problem is to be effectively dealt with a system of progressively higher penalties, such as applies in the case of many other offences, must be introduced.
I am sure that that is right.
The Bill suggests that in the one instance to which the text relates, there should be a higher penalty for second or subsequent convictions. The Wolfenden Committee, however, in paragraph 275, continued:
We accordingly recommend that the maximum penalty for a first offence should be a fine of ten pounds"—
that corresponds with the Bill—
that the maximum penalty for a second offence should be a fine of twenty-five pounds"—
which is higher than that proposed in the Bill—
and that the maximum penalty for a third or subsequent offence should be three months' imprisonment.
That is a steeper scale than is proposed by the Bill and I regard it as more satisfactory. In particular, the final penalty

of imprisonment is right, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. It is not that I wish to see these people put in prison but that I want to bring in, in its full force and effect, the whole probation system, which is of the utmost value.
When we are dealing with this type of offence, we want on the whole to maintain some relationship between the various penalties. In other words, I think it would be quite wrong to pick out one class—either prostitutes or Teddy boys or any of the other classes referred to in Section 54 of the 1938 Act —and deal with it alone, leaving the others with the same penalties as were attached to them in the year 1839.
I do not know that I can take the matter any further. There is nothing in the Bill to which I take exception. For my own part, however, I should be rather sorry to see the Bill make progress in its present form. I would like to see it make progress with some very substantial Amendments. They could, I think, be made within the Long Title of the Bill, although it would be exceedingly difficult for them to be made without some very general recasting. For that reason, I reserve my own position and I should like to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to say when speaking on behalf of the Government.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I add my entire agreement to everything my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has just said. Unfortunately, I was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) moved the Second Reading of the Bill, being detained in one of those places whose powers we now seek to increase. Therefore, I have unfortunately missed almost the entire debate, and I apologise for having done so. Perhaps for that reason it would be wrong for me to intervene, but I feel particularly strongly about this matter.
I consider that the House is missing a very great opportunity to bring up to date and into 1958 terms these offences of 1839. It is of some interest to go back to 1839 and discover the reasons for the creation of these offences and why the


sum of 40s. was decided upon at that time.
It was in the days of the controversy between Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, and the whole purpose of that Measure, as the Title of the Act suggests, was to give the police force an adequate income. One of the Sections of the Act provided that the Lord High Treasurer should be authorised to contribute the sum of £20,000 towards the maintenance of the police force.
There was then discussion in the House as to the best way of raising that large sum of money for the provision and maintenance of the police force, and the debate went on for some hours. It was suggested that there might be substantial fines imposed for certain types of offences and that those fines should go directly to the payment of the police force. In the Act, as the House knows, the only offence the fines for which went into that police fund was the offence of drunkenness.
I suppose that if one were to use that criterion that one should punish a man by requiring him to pay 40s. to the police force in terms of 1839, now, when the cost of the police force is astronomically higher, the fines themselves should be astronomically higher than that which is proposed in the Bill, but that would be unfair to many of these people not really of the criminal classes and who do commit this type of offence.
I fear I should be merely repeating the arguments which have already been adduced if I were to labour this point about the provisions of the Act. Certainly I do not wish to delay this House in hearing other hon. Members, but—and I say this with great respect—I think the Bill is a little bit of a twopenny halfpenny Measure at the moment. Here is a great opportunity to extend it to the prostitutes and the others who are continually committing offences within the Metropolitan area and who treat the existing fines with contempt and who will continue to commit the offences they do commit until they are punished in the monetary terms of 1958 instead of 1839. Therefore, I earnestly hope that when the Bill is considered in Committee it can be so amended as to include substantially all the offences with which the Act of 1839 was designed to deal.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) for referring to this as a twopenny halfpenny Bill. It would be fairer to to say that this is an exercise, though whether it is carried to its logical conclusion eventually and the Bill embodied in the law of the country is a matter of some doubt; although I say that with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens), whom I congratulate on introducing this Measure.
It seems to me that what is significant about it is this. Here and in another place and in many debating assemblies we from time to time adopt a device, putting down an Amendment to a Clause of a Bill in Committee, or, as is done in another place, by moving for Papers, in order to provide opportunity to discuss a point of principle even though it is the clear intention not to pursue the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone has drawn attention to an anomaly in the present law, and I support him in doing that.
What we are considering once again, as we have so often to consider, is whether a decision taken many years ago relating to punishment for offences or crimes is appropriate in present circumstances. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay who used such insulting words about this Bill—although I know he did not mean them—that one can always argue that a Measure is inadequate to meet the point, that it does not go far enough, and that the realistic thing to do is to realise that, if one were to attempt as a private Member to embark upon wholesale amending of the law, one would very quickly become bogged down, as has been very lucidly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), on points of law, on margins, on points of overlapping, and in a great mass of detail which would quickly block any progress. So one would be frustrated in what is, I believe, an admirable purpose in drawing attention to a glaring anomaly.
The kernel of this matter is the question of punishment, its significance in our current thinking, and its place in the penal code. I suppose hardly a week goes by without our considering in this House


whether the Measures we present and propose to put on the Statute Book will be more effective or less effective for various considerations. I understand that the House is being asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone to consider whether what was decided as appropriate in 1839 as a fine for
any threatening, abusive, or insulting Words or Behaviour
and proposed by Parliament at that time remains relevant. I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend in suggesting to the House that it is not relevant and that it should be increased.
The only challenge one can make to that is by questioning whether punishment by fine, whether large or small, remains effective to deter that offender or others who may be like-minded. Of course, one can embark upon a philosophical discussion as to whether punishment by a cash fine is effective in deterring offences of that sort. We have, therefore, to consider, in the context of this Bill, what else one can do about it and the other steps the community must take through the instrument of Parliament to deter people from offending against the principles of normal civilised behaviour.
The range is, of course, limited. I think we all lean over backwards to avoid introducing heavier prison sentences. We have had long and vigorous discussions, and we shall have more, about the ultimate punishment. We feel that long terms of imprisonment are very often the most negative form of punishment and are very seldom truly deterrent; or at least that a term of years does not in fact reflect the deterrent power. Therefore we fall back upon the fine.
I feel convinced that a move in this direction must be accepted on the basis of reason, and even, perhaps, on the basis of emotion. I am well aware that we are seeing every day a clash between these two, with reason being forced back in the face of emotion, but I suggest to the House that if we oppose this Measure because it is not complete enough, or because it only scratches the surface of a great problem, then we must be very ready to devote our time to a vast Measure which will embrace all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South.
On the general question of what we are trying to do, namely, to increase the

deterrent effect of the fine for this sort of offence, I should like to refer the House very briefly, not to the Wolfenden Report, as might be expected, but to an older document—the Report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment (Cmd. 5684), published in 1938 and reprinted in 1952. On page 22 are these words:
Theorists have recognised that punishment may be justified on three main grounds—retribution, deterrence and reform—but the changes which have taken place in our penal methods during the last century have been aimed at subordinating the retributive element to the other elements of deterrence and reform.
I think we are bound to fall back on this sort of penalty for this sort of offence, and therefore we must ensure that it is effective.

Sir E. Errington: Would not my hon. Friend think that this class of offence is eminently suitable to be dealt with by probation?

Mr. Leavey: I think the yardstick or criterion by which I must answer my hon. Friend's question remains the same as I am now putting to the House—which is the most likely to be effective? Which is the most likely to deter either the person in question or others who may be like minded from committing this offence? Under the heading of deterrent, I suggest that a monetary penalty is more likely. I concede immediately to my hon. Friend, under the heading of reform, that the scope for probation treatment is much greater, but there are these two elements. I am sure nobody here would suggest that retribution should play a large part. I think that is out, and I do not think anybody would look back over his shoulder and suggest that it is a proper element. We might turn, perhaps, to Biblical writings to find a precedent, but I am not sure that that is a correct interpretation.
I realise that I have not dealt with the details of the Clauses which are put before us for consideration, and I make no apology for that, because I believe that embodied in this Bill is a matter of principle which is much more important than the amount of penalty which it proposes. I think it is a most dangerous suggestion that, because we do not go far enough in this Bill, we should therefore regard the Bill as a disappointment or should say, "Let us set it aside and


wait until we can take one whole bite at this cherry".
There is always a long list of reasons why we should not take specific action, and very often one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will come to the Box and very rightly point out to us that some proposed Measure cannot be accepted because it deals only with part of the problem and would create fresh anomalies. I do not believe that that is a criticism that we can level against this Bill, and, for the reasons I have given, I welcome it and hope that we shall see it make progress.

1.23 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I put my name to this Bill, which has been introduced because my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) had the good sense to provide the means of bringing it in when he was lucky in the Ballot. I have a personal interest to declare. Although I am never before the police for using insulting words or behaviour, I seem to be permanently having my motor car towed away or finding it parked in the wrong place, and this has given me considerable cause for thought on this subject generally.
I find that policemen seem to be used for all sorts of purposes other than those for which they were originally intended to be used. They were intended to see that people kept the law, and that they did not hit old ladies over the head or murder people. Nowadays, half the Metropolitan Police seem to be walking round the streets of London—and there are almost as many as there are street walkers, also dealt with in this Bill—doing nothing but taking the numbers of the cars of harmless people who, for business and other reasons, have to park their vehicles.
If this is really a very heinous crime, let us increase the penalty. I know that I shall be penalised in a few days, and, perhaps, it would be a bad thing, just at this moment, to suggest that the penalty should be increased; but the Bill will not go through before I come up. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or go down."] I am coming up in a few days. Nevertheless, we really do seem to have too many policemen going round taking the numbers of people's cars.
Having done that, next day the policeman arrives and personally delivers a bit of paper stating that he discovered that one had left one's car for more than half an hour in some street or other the day before. I am not in my office all day. Sometimes I am here, sometimes I am at the office, and sometimes I am in neither place. I have known this business to mean that the poor Metropolitan Police have had to pay no fewer than three visits to get that bit of paper delivered to me, telling me that I have to answer a summons for this very minor offence. Having done that, the policeman then gives one another paper telling one to appear at Marlborough Street on a certain day and at a certain time, and, if the case is not reached on that day, one receives a letter to say that one must go on another day. All this means—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On a point of order. We are fascinated by this account of the crimes of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, do his crimes and misdemeanours come within the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I understand that the Bill would amend the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, which is very widespread in its provisions, and I should not like to rule that the hon. and gallant Member is out of order so far, but I hope he will not pursue the matter too far.

Mr. A. Evans: Further to that point of order. I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been talking about his motor offences and the police actions in regard to those offences. Of course, the Bill before the House certainly does not cover that type of offence.

Mr. Stevens: Further to that point of order. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) is right, because Section 54 (6) of the 1839 Act does, in fact, refer to:
Every person who shall cause any Cart, public Carriage, Sledge … to stand longer than may be necessary for loading or unloading …
and so on. I think that would cover the actions of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Body: Or Section 54 (4).

Mr. A. Evans: Further to that point of order. I am sure, that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and hon. Members opposite, know very well that motor offences are covered by regulations relating to public highways, and are certainly not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in order so far.

Brigadier Clarke: I will try not to overstep the bounds of what one is allowed to speak about on this Bill. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was fascinated with what I was saying, but I could not have been fascinating enough, otherwise he would not have stopped me.
In my view, whether it is a case of motor offences, prostitution or whatever else, there are too many policemen going round looking after that sort of thing, when they should be stopping old ladies from being hit over the head. The House knows that I am all for flogging and hanging, and I think that if policemen were doing their proper job, there would not be such a necessity for my continually having to press for flogging in order to prevent old ladies being hit over the head. People would then be deterred from hitting old ladies over the head, and the police would be doing their proper job, instead of wasting their time prosecuting people who wish, in the normal sense of the word, to be law-abiding citizens.
I agree that in 1839 there were no motor cars but there were all sorts of other things, including musical instruments, towed along by horses. If someone played a musical instrument in the street and one did not like it, one went out and sent him away or sent a manservant to move him. The fines for all these offences under the Act are very small.
People get away very lightly for drunkenness which leads to abusive speech in the street. If the fines were bigger, there would be far less drunkenness. People would get themselves home, instead of disporting themselves in the street and being abusive in the knowledge that if caught they would get away with a comparatively small fine.
The Wolfenden Report has drawn attention to the number of prostitutes

there are on the streets. There are two subjects that Members of Parliament know very little about. One is prostitution and the other is television. One hears the most uninformed comments about television because hon. Members are either in the House doing their job or—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sure that television does not come into the Bill.

Brigadier Clarke: These are the two things about which hon. Members are uninformed, and since television is a pleasanter subject than prostitution I linked them together.
If bigger fines were imposed for prostitution we should not have half the present number of prostitutes on the streets and the police would not have to pull in every morning a mass of ladies who automatically get fined a comparatively small sum which they willingly pay, afterwards going back on to the streets the same night.
There should be a progressive fine. I would go even further than the Bill does. I would fine them £10 for the first offence, £20 for the next and then up to £40. We should then not have these ladies parading their wares in the streets. We would never stop prostitution but we should at least get it out of sight. People ask why we should drive it underground, but I would say that it is better to have it out of sight. That does not mean that we should try to pretend that it does not exist, but when it is driven off the streets it does not provide such a temptation to young men who, when they come away from dinners and theatres and similar entertainments, find all these prostitutes on the streets.
This country is one of the worst in the world for prostitution, and especially the Metropolitan area. If one goes to the wicked city of Paris one hardly ever sees a prostitute, whereas in the Metropolitan area one is constantly brought face to face with these women when one goes to the West End in the evening. As I have already said, very few hon. Members have the opportunity of going to the West End in the evening and consequently they try to pretend that the prostitutes are not there. It is high time that we did something about getting these ladies under cover.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone will not disagree with me that £20 is a small maximum fine to place on many of the offences with which the Bill deals. I would have gone much further, but no doubt my hon. Friend took legal advice and decided that £20 must be the figure. I would go further because, though the maximum penalty might never need to be imposed, it would give magistrates an opportunity to try to get people to observe the law and not just flout it by paying a small fine and being able to escape in that way.

1.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I should like to join in the welcome which has been given by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the very clear and interesting speech with which my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) opened the debate. The Bill has had a general welcome, and I am in the happy position of being able to advise the House confidently that it is a Bill to which it would be wise to give a Second Reading.
It is a Bill of very limited scope. It applies to London only, and to only one of the considerable number of offences under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. And it is an offence which happens to be punishable by fine only. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone, however, is to be congratulated on having stimulated a broad-based and interesting debate which has raised a vast number of social problems. Reference has been made to the policy and action of the police and the Home Office on several points and, as far as I can do so within the rules of order, I will endeavour to answer them.
The only doubts about the Bill have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends who feel that the Public Order Act, 1936, is adequate in its provisions, that it covers the same offence as that covered by Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act and that therefore the Bill is unnecessary. But I hope to persuade them that that view of the law is not the right one to hold.
Then there are those hon. Friends who have criticised the Bill because it does not go far enough. My hon. Friend the

Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) appeared to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone to disown his baby because it was not big enough, but I hope that my hon. Friend will stand by his child like the faithful father he has been so far.
I am sure that the House will agree that on the face of it there is nothing more reasonable than the proposition that fines fixed in 1839 must be too low now. A monetary penalty made when Queen Victoria was a girl is hardly appropriate to the days when her great-great-granddaughter is on the Throne.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Queen Victoria was not just a girl in 1839. She was Queen. She was nineteen.

Mr. Renton: I think that in law, in 1839, she was still an infant although a sovereign.
The year 1839 was the year in which the stage coach was giving way to the railway train, and the first edition of Bradshaw was published that year. The year 1958, on the other hand, sees not a timetable, I am thankful to say, for journeys to the moon but, at any rate, precursors of such travel. In 1839 a fine of two golden sovereigns was a serious matter. A police constable was then paid 19s. a week, and there must have been many people for whom 40s. represented more than two weeks' pay. Now it scarcely amounts to a day's pay. Indeed, to many of the young people for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone has particular regard in this matter a maximum fine of 40s. would mean little more than a slight curtailment of spare money available for their entertainment.
It is because many of the fines fixed in the last century, especially in the early and middle part, have become unreal in relation to modern values that my right hon. Friend has made a decision which may be of some interest to the House. He has put in hand a review of the old statutory fines, the purpose of which is to see which of them need to be brought up to date and which can be allowed to slumber in peace until such time as the obsolete offences to which they refer are removed from the Statute Book. There


are many ridiculous offences. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred to some of them in this Section of the Act.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. and learned Friend has made an important statement. Can we be told whether the result of the inquiry will be announced to the House, and if so, how?

Mr. Renton: The review has only just been put in hand, and it would be premature for me to say in what form, if any, it will become known to the House. I am sure it is not necessary for us at this moment to consider the removal of those obsolete offences. Many of them will die peacefully, but as and when opportunity arises for removing the dead wood from the Statute Book, it is normally taken by the Statute Law Revision Committee.
The Section of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 which my hon. Friend proposes to amend, is a remarkable picture of the teeming, disreputable, rowdy London, or part of London, which is made familiar to us in the novels of Dickens and the illustrations of Phiz—and also the writings of Henry Fielding, who some years earlier had been the first stipendiary magistrate in London at Bow Street Police Court. It was a city of 1½ million inhabitants, many living in indescribable squalor; a city of cesspits and open sewers, of disorderly mobs, in which Sir Robert Peel reckoned—on what statistical basis I do not know—that one in every 22 of the inhabitants was a criminal.
Nevertheless, the offence which was then created by Statute for London was one which was found to be useful from the moment it was created in coping with the problem I have described. As my hon. Friend pointed out in the figures he quoted, it is still useful today. After all, in 1957 there were 3,767 convictions under Section 54 (13) for using insulting words and behaviour. A variety of offences and offenders were included in that figure, amongst them some prostitutes. Here would be, I think, the right moment to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). My hon. Friend felt, if I understand his point rightly, that it was wrong for us to be increasing the fine under Section

54 (13) while not at the same time increasing the fine for soliciting under paragraph 11. I will say a few words about that.
It is true that a number of prostitutes are brought up under paragraph 13, but they are charged under that paragraph for an entirely distinct offence, not that of soliciting but of using insulting words and behaviour. What, no doubt, my hon. Friend feels, and I agree with him, is that if it is right to increase the penalty for using insulting words and behaviour, then the fact that it happens to be an offence of which prostitutes are sometimes guilty should not deter us from increasing the penalty for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and other hon. Members also seemed to be inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone to deal further with the difficult question of prostitutes. I hope he will resist the temptation, because, candidly, it is a large and difficult subject and not one which ought to be dealt with by small, piecemeal measures. Even if we extended the scope of this Bill by encouraging my hon. Friend to make his Bill refer to paragraph 11 as well as to paragraph 13, that would merely be a piecemeal extension of the law in such a way as to deal to only a very minor extent with the problem of prostitution, and it is obviously a problem which, if it is to be dealt with, should be dealt with in a broader way.

Sir E. Errington: The complaint of those of us who are against the Bill is that it deals with important matters in a piecemeal way. I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he does not consider that these matters are so important in existing conditions that they ought to be dealt with as a whole by the Government, particularly by the Home Secretary, who takes a deep personal interest in these matters.

Mr. Renton: I agree that the question of what should be the fine for insulting words and behaviour is important, but it is a matter which stands by itself to a great extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) referred to the fact that the police in this country go about unarmed; Parliament provides them with their armoury by giving them the power of prosecution and by giving power to the courts to


award penalties when the police prosecution leads to conviction. What my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone feels, and I agree with him, is that we must see to it that the important powers of the police on this point are made effective by the penalty being brought up to date and made more realistic.
To some extent that is dealing with the matter piecemeal, but it is dealing with a simple and straightforward matter in a piecemeal way, and this constitutes no argument for also dealing in a piecemeal way with the much more complicated and, from the legislative and social point of view, the much bigger and more difficult problem of prostitution. If I may round off this part of the case, the fact that we should, to a minor and incidental extent, be impinging on the practice in relation to prostitution, whereby prostitutes can be and are prosecuted for using insulting words and behaviour, should not deter us from making this necessary reform.
I will deal next with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot which, if I understood his argument correctly, was this: by all means let us increase the fine under paragraph 13, but let us make sure that the increase is big enough.

Sir E. Errington: We believe that the fine should be increased and that the ultimate should be imprisonment, the object being to produce a situation where probation should operate.

Mr. Renton: Yes, I understand, and, as I shall show, there are opportunities under other Statutes of dealing with the more serious of the offenders which I think my hon. Friend has in mind. The offence of insulting words and behaviour is a useful way of trying to keep some control over the behaviour of those people who are not really criminals for whom imprisonment should be the penalty, but against whom there should be some sanction which authority can use.
The question is whether the obviously right sanction, which is the fine, is effective—whether the maximum permissible fine is large enough. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that either imprisonment or, indeed, probation is a necessary part of the sanction that we

need against these petty exhibitionists who are just a nuisance in the street by being rowdy. As I shall mention in a moment, for the more serious offender we have very considerable powers.
I return to my point whether or not, if we are increasing the fine from the two sovereigns of 1839 to a sum in paper money of 1958, my hon. Friend has chosen the right yardstick by multiplying by five for the first offence, and whether he should go further and say that for second and subsequent offences yet double again would be right—£20.
There is a simple basis of comparison, I am advised. Prices have risen since 1850 by about 400 per cent. A five-fold increase of an amount fixed in 1839 is, therefore, a fairly accurate translation of the money values of that period into the money values of today. Therefore, in regard to the straight increase from 40s. to £10, I should have thought that my hon. Friend had broad accuracy and rough justice on his side.
Next, let us face it that we are introducing a new element into the law as set out in the 1839 Act, because that Act merely provides a 40s. punishment each time the offence was committed, and does not have any provision for increasing the maximum penalty for subsequent offences in the way that my hon. Friend proposes. I hope that I shall not be considered to be taking a Committee point in mentioning this; it is a very important point. It is not a point on which I am prepared to advise the House at this moment, but I think it is one which should receive some attention by my hon. Friend and by the House during the Committee stage. We should have our eyes open to the fact that we shall be introducing a new element in respect of this type of offence. The question is whether it is right to do so, bearing in mind that we are dealing to a great extent with exhibitionists.
It is very interesting to compare life as it was in those days with life as it is today. We are inclined to think that life was more colourful then, but we have heard so much talk about teddy boys, students, hooligans and "angry young men," to say nothing of Members of Parliament who know nothing of television and other matters, that I am wondering whether we really have such very different problems from those which our forebears had to meet when they


originally fixed the penalty. I mention this matter because I have just the smallest doubt about the graduation upwards, but I will take advice about it between now and the Committee stage to ascertain the best advice to give my hon. Friend. Meanwhile, hon. Members' thoughts on the matter will be welcomed.
I must now deal with the question of the Public Order Act, 1936. A very serious point was raised, first, by my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone, and then by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who has asked me to apologise for his unavoidable absence at this moment because of a public engagement.
Section 5 of the 1936 Act has a certain amount in common with Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act. Both statutes are intended to ensure public order, both are intended to punish crimes against the peace, and both—this is particularly important when comparing the two Sections—refer to the commission of offences in public places. Therefore, on the face of it, when Section 5 of the 1936 Act says:
Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.
it looks very much as though it is enacting exactly what is in Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act.
It may well be a matter over which lawyers would argue, but I am resting myself on the general proposition that the clear intention of the 1936 Act, as expressed in its Preamble and through all its Sections, is to deal not with petty outbreaks of exhibitionism on the pavements but with organised breaches of the peace which have some kind of motive behind the organisation and constitute a serious threat to public order. It is for that reason that the penalties are fixed at a much higher rate in the 1936 Act, even for using insulting words and behaviour, than they are under the 1839 Act. Therefore, for what it is worth—

Mr. James Griffiths: Might we clarify the point? Surely the 1936 Act was passed by the House to deal with a situation which had arisen owing to the rise of the Fascist movement and what happened in the East End.

Mr. Renton: That is yet another explanation. A slightly narrower one was given earlier by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), that it was to protect the Jews from the Fascists. I had always thought that the explanation which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has just given was the correct one, that it was to protect the community at large from the Fascists. I think that was the main intention.
I ought to remind the House, because this is a matter of considerable importance when dealing with the arguments which have been raised by my hon. Friends, that an undertaking was given by the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, later Lord Simon, during the debates on the Measure that the Act would not be used for the purpose of dealing with solicitation, and that Section 5 in particular would not be used for it. In a circular to the police forces about the Act the then Home Secretary indicated that similar considerations applied to people guilty while drunk of disorderly behaviour in public places, and asked chief officers of police to ensure that Section 5 should not be used where the offence could be dealt with adequately under any other enactment.
I was asked whether Section 5 had been used otherwise than in the general way intended when the 1936 Act was introduced, and I can tell the House that as far as we know Section 5 has been limited to its original purpose and has not been used merely for charging people who are drunk and disorderly. This is a serious point, and I felt that I ought to deal with it at some length. I can certainly assure my hon. Friends that the existence of Section 5 of the 1936 Act and the high penalties which go with it does not make it any less useful to increase the penalties in Section 54 (13) of the 1839 Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone and others expressed a good deal of anxiety about the position of young offenders, a good many of whom have been dealt with under paragraph 13. I have not very much to say about that at the moment, except to remind the House that the Ingleby Committee on the treatment of young offenders is sitting and that it will no doubt wish to pay regard to what has been said in the


debate. Even if nothing had been said in the debate it would no doubt have been considering the question how such young offenders as we have in mind here today should be dealt with.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) mentioned specifically the use of flick knives, about which there was some anxiety in his constituency two or three years ago.

Mr. Janner: And more recently.

Mr. Renton: It may be that there has been still further anxiety. I know that last year he raised the matter a number of times, and perhaps he has done so this year.

Mr. Janner: There was a recent case in Leicester in which a flick knife was used by a boy of thirteen who stabbed a girl. It is a very serious matter, and I give warning to the hon. and learned Member that I shall raise it again with him.

Mr. Renton: I feel that I should be going a little beyond the scope of the Bill if I anticipated the occasion on which the hon. Member may raise the matter again. Meanwhile, I ask him to bear in mind that the appeal which my right hon. Friend made to traders not to sell these knives to people who have no legitimate use for them is proving successful, as far as we can see.

Mr. Janner: No, it is not.

Mr. Renton: The difficulty is that these knives are legitimately used in certain types of manual occupation, and it is very difficult for their use to be prohibited completely.
I come to the question of the more serious offences, because I think it necessary to mention them in view of the feeling expressed by a number of hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, that the penalties for collective rowdyism, even if the Bill is passed, will

not be heavy enough. Without going into too much detail, I remind my hon. Friends that there are a number of penalties which range, in the case of offences against the person, from two months' imprisonment for common assault and two years' for indictable assault up to life imprisonment for felonious wounding—that is, when any body is injured in the course of a case of collective rowdyism. Of course, if property is damaged, then there are considerable fines under the Malicious Damage Act, and, indeed, the opportunity of imprisonment. The maximum penalty for substantial damage to property rises from two years' imprisonment if the offence is committed by day to five years if it is committed by night.
The type of offence which we are now considering is one for which a relatively small monetary penalty seems appropriate, and the sums proposed by my hon. Friend seem adequate to enable the courts, in dealing with young hooligans to whom they think it is necessary to teach a lesson, to impose penalties which will hurt the offender's pocket.
My hon. Friend has introduced what seems to us to be a useful Measure which will assist the courts in London in dealing with types of offence which can appropriately be dealt with by monetary penalties but which merit a more severe punishment than can be imposed at present. I therefore hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that it will subsequently have a felicitous passage through the House. There are one or two very minor drafting Amendments which I must advise my hon. Friend to make in his Bill, but they would perhaps be better left to a later stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.7 p.m.

Mr. George Deer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I want to thank hon. Member opposite for not being afraid of the word "deer" being associated with this Bill and for not deciding to keep me out a little longer. The Bill provides
for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund to workmen to whom the Workmen's Compensation Acts apply; and for purposes connected therewith.
This is no new subject, because in the last five or six years there have been four different essays into it. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) endeavoured to raise it in 1953, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) had another attempt and in 1956 and again this year I myself have returned to this matter to see whether we could do something for this class of injured people whom we think merit the attention and the sympathy of the House.
There has been outside pressure in this matter, and the Minister is aware that the Trades Union Congress, the National Union of Mineworkers and individual Members of Parliament have all met him at different times to put the plea that something should be done to remedy this grievance. In the Bill I have tried as far as I can to follow the phraseology which was adopted in the Minister's own Bill in 1956, and I want to express my thanks to the officers of the House who assisted me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), who is not here today, who did valiant service in helping me to get over the legal points which are pitfalls to Private Members attempting to introduce a Bill of this kind.
The background shows that about 40,000 people are still receiving workmen's compensation in either a partial or total disablement capacity. It is an unfortunate fact that half these people come from the mining industry. Anyone who has talked to members of that industry about industrial injuries will

not go far before someone says to him, "What about the forgotten men—the people who were injured before 1948 and whose injuries are assessed on the basis of loss of earnings and not loss of faculties?"
I am also told that of the people drawing partial benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Acts a considerable proportion, although not qualifying for the full benefit because their earning capacity has not been impaired to the extent that it would have been if they had been wholly incapacitated, have great difficulty in maintaining their jobs. The National Union of Mineworkers tells me that over 7,000 of its members in that category have had to leave the industry because of their injury, and many of them are out of work.
The idea of compensating these people more adequately is not put forward in an attempt to do something different from what was provided in the 1956 Act. The Bill is being introduced because we believe that these people have had a raw deal. Many of them have suffered a considerable loss of faculties, but because some kind employers have found them jobs the loss of faculties is ignored and their compensation is based upon loss of earnings.
I was a trade union official for many years before I had the privilege of sitting in this House, and during that time I had many experiences of handling difficulties arising in workmen's compensation cases. As a very young man I remember the real shock I had when I was trying to negotiate with an insurance firm on behalf of a young girl who had lost part of her middle finger when working on a leather guillotine machine. Wages were not very high in those days, and she was earning a very small sum of money, but when we came to negotiate the final settlement the insurance company representative said, "This girl has not lost her capacity; in fact she has actually gained, because the finger is not in the way and she can work quicker." That case occurred in Mansfield. It was decided that she had no difficulty about looking after her longest finger and she should therefore be able to continue to work at the same job.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the first Workmen's Compensation Act, which was


superseded by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. It gave a maximum allowance of £2 a week, plus allowances for children, and was based upon loss of earning capacity. If a worker had been on short time, or had lost employment for varying causes, he suffered in the assessment of his compensation payments by virtue of that misfortune. There was no compensation for loss of a limb or partial disablement unless loss of earnings was also proved.
In many cases the men concerned were taken on again by their employers, and in those cases all that could be got for them—even where their injuries involved amputations—was a declaration of liability that if, on some future occasion, they lost their earning capacity, the matter could be reopened. There must still be thousands of such cases on the files.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) piloted the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act through the House we took an entirely new line about compensation for loss of faculties, and we made all kinds of allowances. A contributory scheme was introduced, with State responsibility. The matter was taken out of the hands of the insurance companies. Since then the position of those receiving payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts has gradually worsened. We have been able to increase benefits paid out of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, but that has had no effect upon the position of those drawing benefit under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts.
It was not until 1956 that the Minister produced a Bill with a similar Title to this, which provided that the 11,000 or 12,000 people who were wholly disabled should have their benefit increased by 17s. 6d. a week in order to give them parity. It then did not make any difference whether a man became wholly dependent before or after 1948. That Bill went through the House with the blessing of hon. Members on both sides. It had one of the quickest passages that I can remember. We were most anxious not to obstruct the Minister. We wanted to help him to perform what he called an act of justice, in order to remove real hardship. If I wanted to do so I could quote at length from Ministerial speeches

made on the 1956 Act in order to justify what I propose to say about the first half of the Bill.
We next had the National Insurance (No. 2) Act of 1957, which increased the benefits of persons receiving payments from the Industrial Injuries Scheme. Once again therefore, a gap was created between the two classes of people receiving compensation. It seems to me that I need only argue that if action was justified in 1956 in order to bring the two classes of people together it is surely justified in 1958. The Minister should reconsider the position and once again remove the differences in benefit paid to people under the 1956 Act and 1957 Act respectively.
The first Clause deals with two matters. First, it alters the benefit from 17s. 6d. to 35s., thus bringing the two classes of people together again. Secondly, in the case of a person who is wholly disabled, the Clause increases the benefit from £52 to £156. We suggest that £1 a week is not a realistic figure in these days.
If a man can do something to eke out his existence it helps him not only financially but psychologically. In other words, he does not feel entirely on the shelf. Therefore, most of our rehabilitation work is directed to getting people back to work instead of sitting nursing their grievances and developing into hypochondriacs. We think that the alteration of the figure to three times its present amount would be realistic and that it would put the payment more in line with present day values.
Clause 2, of course, raises the question of the partially disabled. I know that I am in difficulties here, because I have discussed the matter many times with the Minister. There is always the question of administration, and so on. We believe that a rough and ready way of dealing with the matter is to say that everybody with a disability of over 10 per cent. should be given the flat rate sum of 15s. a week out of the fund. That would compensate them for their years of waiting during which time they have fallen behind. That is the justification for that. As I have already mentioned, the latent cases are really in a similar position. As I said, people who have lost compensation because of earning capacity ought not to be left out.
Clause 4 deals with the wife's allowance arising out of the 1924 Act, and Clause 5 deals with the loss of faculty to be determined by the existing machinery. We think that the Ministerial machinery both in regard to pensions and National Insurance could very easily deal with this matter. In any case, I do not think that the people who were dealt with under the 1956 Act caused many headaches to the Minister at that time. The matter was dealt with very expeditiously and very reasonably, and we received no complaints about people having to wait for medicals, being delayed or being refused.
Surely, it is not too much to expect when a man has suffered an amputation and experiences trouble arising out of his industrial disability that the staff of the Ministry should deal with the matter expeditiously. We believe that if the will is there such cases could be dealt with on those lines.
Clause 6 has caused me some difficulty because when framing the Bill I found that, having no Money Resolution, something had to be done to meet the administrative side of the matter. I have had to say that not only shall benefits come out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, but administrative costs also. It was not my idea of dealing with the point, but it was the only way that I could get the Bill past the Table. Of course, a way out would be for the Minister, as he did in the case of the 1956 Bill, to take over this Measure. He could then submit a Money Resolution without any trouble, in which case the charges would not come out of the fund.
Quite frankly, I know the difficulty about some of the latter things I have mentioned, but I do not think that there is any difficulty about the first Clause which seeks to bring back parity to the people who were helped years ago and who have now slipped back. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance on the Government Front Bench. I do not say this in any disparagement of his two colleagues, but I know the honest and sincere way in which the hon. Gentleman dealt with the other pension cases. If he can persuade his Department to be half as reasonable with those in receipt of industrial injuries benefit as it was

with the other kind of pensioners. I shall be very happy.
I know that I am knocking at an open door, and I want to say how glad I am that we have a new face on the Treasury Bench dealing with these matters. I am hoping that, if the hon. Gentleman cannot say "Yes" today, he will not entirely slam the door, and that what happened in 1956 may happen again in 1958.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sure I am voicing the feelings of all hon. Members when I say that we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) for explaining the principal provisions of his Bill so sincerely and so ably. As lie reminded us, this is not the first time that an attempt has been made by way of a Private Member's Bill to improve the position of those who come under the old workmen's compensation system. Previous similar Bills failed either because they did not get the necessary support or because they were not reached.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark was himself successful in a Private Members' Ballot in 1956, and on that occasion he endeavoured to introduce a Bill something on the lines of the one he has introduced today. Not long after that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance brought forward a Bill, which ultimately became law, providing a supplement of 17s. 6d. for those totally disabled and who came under the old Workmen's Compensation Act. I have no doubt that at that time my hon. Friend's Bill, the efforts that had been made by other hon. Members and the representations made by the Trades Union Congress, did, to some extent, influence the Minister of the day. I am sure I am voicing the opinion of all hon. Members when I say that we appreciate the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark on so many occasions with a view to improving the lot of those men who come under the workmen's compensation system, and I want to compliment him on those efforts.
The present Bill seeks to increase the payment of compensation paid to those suffering a disability as the result of an


accident sustained or an industrial disease contracted prior to 5th July, 1948. In other words, it endeavours to close the gap between the payments made under the old workmen's compensation system and those made under the Industrial Injuries Act.
I would remind the House that when the Industrial Injuries Act came into operation married persons under the Workmen's Compensation Act were receiving more than under the Industrial Injuries Act. That was the position in 1948 but, as we have already been reminded, since then increases have been given to those coming under the Industrial Injuries Act, but those coming under the old Workmen's Compensation system have been left behind. This disparity has widened over the years, particularly for the partially disabled.
It is most difficult for one to understand what reason there can be for not putting the old workmen's compensation cases on a parity with cases under the new Act. It is unreasonable to have two classes of injured men, one class receiving a lower rate of compensation than the other simply because the accident occurred prior to 5th July, 1948. I readily admit, of course, that we are here dealing with two systems of compensation. Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act the principle obtained, as it does today, that the liability was that of the employer or the insurance company. As has been said, the Minister introduced legislation in 1956 which provided for a supplement of 17s. 6d. to be added to the old workmen's compensation rates.
Introducing that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said he appreciated that the amounts between the schemes had diverged considerably and that payments under the old scheme were out of line with what would be received by men who were injured subsequently and since the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act came into operation. That is the position today. We have had these further increases under that Act, and we are back to where we were regarding the totally disabled. The case put then by the Minister holds good now.
What is the present position of the totally disabled? Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts a totally disabled

married person receives 50s. a week from the employer or the insurance company, plus 17s. 6d. supplementary payment, making a total of £3 7s. 6d. Under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act he receives 85s., a difference of 17s. 6d. In this Bill, my hon. Friend is providing that the 17s. 6d. should be paid to these old compensation cases and thus put them all in the same position. I submit that that is a reasonable proposal. It is unjust that persons who are disabled should be compensated at a lesser rate because of a difference in the date of the accidents. If that applies to the totally disabled, it also applies to the partially disabled. Our objection to the Bill in 1956, although we were anxious that there should be increased supplementation, was that the partially disabled were left out. They have received no increase in the rates of compensation payable to them since 1943.
It will be argued that there are two systems for the payment to partially incapacitated people, which is true. We have been reminded that compensation under the old system is based on earning capacity; not so much on the nature of the disability but on the workman's loss of earnings. Where there is a loss of earnings, generally speaking the man receives two-thirds of the difference between pre-accident and post-accident wages. If there is no difference, he does not receive anything. Here we are dealing with men who suffered accidents many years ago, as long as 20 or 25 years ago, when wages were extremely low. Some suffered accidents at the time of a severe trade depression, and case after case could be quoted of men who were at that time earning £2 10s. a week although they were skilled men. Therefore their compensation was extremely low.

Mr. Charles Doughty: There is the notional pre-accident rate.

Mr. Finch: I was coming to that.
In 1943, provision was made for a person to have his pre-accident wages reviewed, if he could show that there had been an increase in the rate of remuneration in the occupation which he was following at the time of the accident. That applied to the 1925 Workmen's Compensation Acts. In recent years many


men have taken advantage of that provision. A man whose pre-accident earnings might have been £2 10s. or £3 has been able to prove that there has been an increase in the remuneration paid to people engaged in the same occupation, and his pre-accident rate has been doubled. Other conditions cannot be reviewed in this connection, and workers in the mining and engineering industries, although conditions may have changed, cannot take those factors into account in reviewing pre-accident wages.
To quote an extreme case, but one which will hold good over the whole range, a person may have been blinded in a pit explosion. He may be fortunate enough, after years of effort and industry, to find an occupation which he can follow. His pre-accident earnings might have been £7 a week, and in his new job he is receiving £7 a week. Although he has been blinded, he receives no compensation for that, because he is earning the same wage as before. By the provisions in this Bill, my hon. Friend is trying to rectify that unfortunate position. The wage paid to such a man before his accident were low and conditions were different from those which prevail today, and, therefore, we submit that he should receive partial compensation at a static rate of 15s.
Many men were compelled to accept lump sums in respect of accidents. Generally, this was because the firm for which they worked went into liquidation. In my own constituency, men received compensation at the rate of 1s. 6d. and 2s. 6d. in the £ because the company employing them went into liquidation. As a result, sums of £40 or £50 were paid for serious incapacity. Some people may have received £20, £100 or £150, but they have not received anything like adequate remuneration. My hon. Friend is trying to redress this state of affairs by saying that they should be paid the right compensation, and here again I submit that the proposals in the Bill are reasonable.
Many of these disabled men are unemployed. They cannot get work owing to their serious disablement. Their partial compensation is based upon what they are deemed to be able to earn. A man might have lost an arm or be suffering from pneumoconiosis. He could be judged to be able to earn £5 or £6 a week as he was not unemployed on

medical grounds but because he could not get a suitable job. Consequently, many men receive low rates of compensation on assumed earning capacity. There are 7,000 of these unemployed disabled men in the mining industry, and we are trying to remedy the situation for them by the provision of 15s. a week.
There is another class of hardship, consisting of men who were more fortunate in that they sustained their accidents in the later years before the Industrial Injuries Act came into operation. It was a time when wages were higher. Many of them were highly skilled and they became entitled to the maximum partial rate. Many of them were fit only for light work, for which they got £5 or £6 per week. They may have been skilled engineers, engine drivers and the like. Their pre-accident earnings may have been £11 or £12 per week, but in light employment they can get only £7 or £8, leaving a gap of £4 or £5 per week.
For these men to get a maximum of £2 10s. in disablement benefit is most disheartening. Many of them were skilled men, and they now see themselves deprived of what might be regarded as a reasonable pre-accident wage. They feel that they have been robbed of their skill, of their years of apprenticeship and their years of training. A man in this class undoubtedly looked forward to years of fairly good wages, but he forgot that he might sustain an accident or, in the mining industry, that he was threatened with pneumoconiosis, and be deprived of his pre-accident income and forced to take a job in a light labour class with a difference of several pounds per week.
The Bill proposes that a man in this class of case should receive another 35s. a week, which would put him on the same basis as many of those under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, under which a man partially disabled can go up to the same figure as a man who is totally disabled.
Let me give figures from South Wales. There are, in that part of the country alone, 1,577 totally disabled men under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. There are the partially disabled who are getting the maximum partial compensation of £2 10s., and their number is


2,846. There are also in South Wales today 2,259 persons getting less than the maximum. These classes make a total of 6,682.

Mr. Arthur Probert: Can my hon. Friend say whether those figures include the men who have commuted their claims?

Mr. Finch: No, they do not. They include only cases of men in receipt of partial disablement compensation.
I would refer to the position of persons under the Old Workmen's Compensation Acts, prior to 1924. The maximum payment to these older men is £2 per week. There are not many today who are in that position, but they do not get the extra 10s. for their wives as do men under the subsequent Acts. The Bill would seek to remedy that anomaly. We are endeavouring to marry these two systems, and we want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions to play the rôle of officiating parson at the ceremony.
I have tried to look at the matter as clearly as I can, to see what arguments there are against the Bill. I always like to look at the arguments of the other side. It is difficult to see what objection there could be lifting these two rates up to a similar basis. It may be said that we are dealing only with partial cases and are allowing them the 15s., provided they are assessed at 10 per cent. or more, but we have to fix some method of doing it. That means a medical examination. I understand that that is one of the objections, but it is not insuperable. Many of these men would be examined in due course by the medical board to ascertain the extent of their disability. If they are assessed at 10 per cent. under the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act they would have to do the same. The medical board is doing a good job in cases of pneumoconiosis. I cannot see that men could object to medical examination.
The other objection can be a financial one. I would remind the House of the increased contribution that industrial workers are now called upon to pay as the result of the Acts passed in December last. Contributors have to pay an extra 6d. into the Industrial Injuries Fund. The receipts into the Industrial Injuries

Fund in the past year were £27½ million. It was admitted by the Actuary that the 1958 cost would come to about £10 million, leaving a balance of £17,500,000.
It has been said that as years go by the number of cases will increase, but I submit that £17,500,000 is a fairly substantial sum over and above expenditure with which to deal with them. The surplus will be due entirely to the increase of 6d. and to the Exchequer contribution. The fund will not be undermined by the proposals of the Bill.

Mr. David Jones: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Actuary estimates in his report that the increases will cost £15 million in the year 1979–80, and that the increased income will result in £27 million in the same year?

Mr. Finch: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. It relates to the year 1958–59. Surely there cannot be any argument here on financial grounds. The men working in industry are paying the increased contribution, and feel that the older men who worked in industry should get the same payment as they themselves will be getting.
I shall not attempt to cover any other points, except to point out that the financial liability imposed by the Bill is a dying one. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot get up and say that he does not know what the future will bring, because he knows that the men who would benefit by the Bill are passing away year by year. The more I look at this matter the more sure I feel that the Government must give serious consideration to the proposals of the Bill, which are reasonable and just and offer redress to men who have made a very valuable contribution in industry in the years gone by.
These miners, steelworkers, railway-men and others of that kind, have never had a chance to get these great opportunities of modern medical treatment, or of rehabilitation and training. So great has been the advance in medicine that if a man now gets a serious fracture he receives the most up-to-date treatment, but we must think of the old boys who, because of accidents years ago, are malformed and suffer serious disability. They did not get proper treatment. For all these years they have been robbed of their earning capacity and of the full


enjoyment of life. The least that this House can do is to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill and so give the older men of industry a reasonable chance.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. R. P. Hornby: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on the speeches they have made. I am sure everyone present feels that there was a wealth of experience behind the remarks made and the trouble taken by those hon. Members in drafting the Bill and calling attention to a problem which must concern us very closely in an industrial society such as ours. We all want to be certain that we are trying to do well by people who have served us in industry and have suffered as a result of their work.
Before coming to the exact provisions of the Bill, I wish to point out that we can never emphasise too much that the best thing we can do in this matter is to see that we take all possible measures in engineering and design, in safety regulations in factories, and in medical research, to prevent such accidents occurring. A great deal has been, and is being, done in those respects.
We had a very clear explanation of the Bill from the hon. Member for Newark. It deals specifically with people who have suffered industrial injuries or contracted industrial diseases, especially those who suffered and contracted them before 5th July, 1948—those to whom he referred as "forgotten people". The Bill has two main objectives. It seeks to close the gap in financial benefits received by those injured before 1948 and those injured after 1948. It seeks also to widen the scope of workmen's compensation and to raise the payment under the earnings rule, if we can call it that, from £52 to £156. It would bring partially disabled people and those whom the hon. Member described as latent cases into that scope.
I wish to speak about the problem of the gap between pre-1948 and post-1948 cases. It strikes everyone immediately as hard that there should be a difference in treatment between a person injured in June, 1948, and a person injured a month later. As the hon. Member said, because of that we had the 1956 Act, which attempted to bring those two categories into line with one

another. I am not quite clear—and hope we shall hear more about this—whether in the 1956 Act we were trying to arrive at a permanent equality between those two categories and to marry the two systems. If so, the very fact that we are having this debate shows that we did not succeed. Nor shall we succeed in this Bill, for we shall leave another gap if insurance benefits change at any time, although, as this is a dwindling category of people, the gap will be on a dwindling scale.
The first question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether, recognising the difficulty of this problem, we think this periodical way of tackling it is the right way? Should we look for some action on a wider scale and try to achieve a permanent solution? Probably the hon. Member for Newark would be the first to agree that this Bill will not provide a permanent solution. The second question arises in this way. When the 1956 Bill was introduced, did not the Minister of Pensions try to suggest that he was tackling the problem in this way as he was tackling personal hardships because of the gap between what those cases received and what the post-1948 cases received. The question we have to ask ourselves affects the urgency for the Bill. it is whether we are in the same position now in relation to 1956 standards and payments. Is there the same urgency, or can we arrive at a better solution?
In relation to both those problems we are not dealing only with the forgotten people, the pre-1948 people. We have to remember the principle involved as well as those people. In spite of the figures quoted, the principle is that we are talking about an insurance fund and in several provisions of the Bill we are asking for payment out of an insurance fund to non-contributors. When there is a backlog, of cases not covered by an insurance fund at the time of its introduction that is always a tempting thing to do. We had the same problem in relation to retirement pensions. One has to be wary of pushing demands on a fund too far, because there is a danger that one might run the fund into difficulties in respect of the £17 million quoted by the hon. Member for Bedwellty.

Mr. Finch: The money is there.

Mr. Hornby: The money always seems to be there when one takes these steps, but one has to look very carefully at payments to non-contributors out of an insurance fund. Otherwise, there is a very real risk of running into difficulties. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to one or two questions on this subject. I wonder if he can give some idea of what he thinks the Bill would involve in terms of cost? Probably it is a very difficult figure to arrive at, particularly in view of the latent cases. May we have an indication in terms of the number of cases? Can my hon. Friend tell us whether we are considering the whole field of industrial injuries, and what research is going on into the whole problem of insurance? There has been talk about that in the Press and in the House in relation to the National Health Service. I wonder if this is something which could be brought within the scope of that survey.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark on introducing the Bill. This is an important subject; so also is the insurance principle which is involved. I do not think it easy to separate the two. It is of great use to us all to have had this discussion and we look forward to hearing a speech from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary towards the close of the debate.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the questions and the points put by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby). He told us that we ought to deal with this problem in some other way. I agree that what the Bill seeks to do is to reduce the disparity between a man who sustained an accident on 1st July, 1948, and a man who sustained a similar kind of accident only a week later on 8th July, 1948.
Many of us who were in this House from 1945 and helped my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to get his Industrial Injuries Bill through Parliament in 1946 believed that a solution of the problem would be found by an arrangement with the then employers whereby beneficiaries under the Workmen's Compensation Act could be brought within the Industrial Injuries Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, then Minister of National

Insurance, strove hard to secure some kind of agreement. He sought to secure some kind of lump sum payment into the Industrial Injuries Fund in respect of those who were injured and receiving compensation prior to 5th July, 1948, so that they would be dealt with in precisely the same way as those who sustained an accident after that date.
As far as I know, no agreement was possible. It was not possible for the then employers to provide the necessary lump sum to enable the proposal to be considered. Consequently, to the disappointment of many of us, there arose gradually over the years the disparity by which the pre-1948 partially and totally disabled people were treated quite differently. I agree with the hon. Member for Tonbridge that the principle of insurance was not observed, but, frankly, I do not see how, in 1958, it is possible to secure any other kind of arrangement.
When the total weekly income of those who are paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act does not come up to the total by which the National Assistance Board relieves those who are otherwise destitute, their only recourse is to the National Assistance Board to make up the difference. To the extent that the Industrial Injuries Fund would carry this financial liability, the liability to the National Assistance Board would be eased.
I should have thought that today's Bill is the natural consequence of the Bill introduced by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance towards the end of last year, when, because of the increases in the cost of living, he decided to make increases in the amount of benefit to be paid to those entitled to receive benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act. For example, prior to the introduction of the Bill last year, the injury benefit was 67s. 6d. a week. It has now been increased to 85s. All that today's Bill seeks to do is to apply the same principle of financial assistance to the totally disabled who are not covered in the same way by the Industrial Injuries Act.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) pointed out, the Minister described the 1956 Bill as an attempt to narrow the gap. Surely, if in 1956 it was right to bring those outside


the Industrial Injuries Act up to a rate comparable with beneficiaries under that Act, it is not unreasonable to argue that precisely the same thing should be done in 1958. That is all that the Bill seeks to do for the totally disabled.
It is true that the Bill seeks to bring into account the partially disabled. I do not want at this stage to cover the ground so admirably covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), but I would point out that on page 3 of the Report by the Government Actuary (Cmnd. 294) there appears the point which I sought to make in an interjection to my hon. Friend that whereas the benefit introduced towards the end of last year will cost £10 million in a full year, the Actuary indicates that in the first full year the contributions will increase by £22,900,000 and the total extra receipts in future years will be about £27½ million. He goes on to point out that:
In 1979–80 the estimated expenditure on benefits and administration will be £81 millions, including £15 millions as a result of the proposed increases.
I assume, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that there will still be an increased income to the Fund of at least £22½ million. The additional increase under this Bill will be added to the £15 million, so that in twenty years from now there is an increase from contributions as against a smaller increase of benefits the Fund will have a substantial increase.
What better purpose could that increase be put to than to make some small effort to narrow this gap? I know of two cases in South Wales. Each man lost a limb within fourteen days of the other, one just before 5th July and one immediately afterwards. They lived in the same town, almost the same street, and they were injured in the same colliery, but because of that accident of dates one gets a substantially smaller income per week that the other.
Those of us who have the honour to represent here constituencies where heavy industry preponderates as it does in mine, for example, where there is shipbuilding, steel making, heavy engineering and dock work, will know the proportion of partially disabled people consequent upon injuries in those industries and the inability of those industries to absorb anything like the number that the

light industries in other parts can. One of the tragedies of this country, as seen in the Midlands, for example, is that where light industry preponderates the number of light employment jobs which can be provided is substantially higher than it is in the areas where there is heavy industry.
Some of my hon. and right hon. Friends know more about the mining industry than I, but I know of very few light jobs which can be found in the mining industry for a man who is injured in that industry. I know of very few light jobs in the steel-making industry for partially disabled men. I know of very few light jobs in the docks of this country for partially disabled men—a man bereft of a limb, for instance, or of three or four fingers. The problem we are trying to deal with is accentuated in those parts of the country where heavy industry preponderates and because of the balance of the economy of the country being what it is. In areas of heavy industry we see the problem day after day. I saw it last weekend in my own constituency, when I was urged to support this Bill.
Because I believe that it is absolutely necessary to do something for the partially disabled and wholly disabled people who were partially or wholly disabled before 5th July, 1948, I hope that this Bill will, without too much delay, become part of the law of this land.

3.9 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): One respect in which we all envy the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) is his continual success in the Ballots. If he is anything like as lucky with ERNIE he will be a rich man in no time. He is quite right, of course, in saying that there have been repeated attempts during the last few years to carry out the kind of objectives which he has set before himself in this Bill. In a relatively short connection with this subject of workmen's compensation, I have found two things; first, that it looks difficult, and secondly, that it is a great deal less simple than it looks. Therefore, I hope I may be forgiven if I tread rather nervously and gently over the ground which the hon. Member himself and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and other hon. Members have covered so confidently.
The first comment I should like to make is that I am quite convinced that the basic principle of loss of faculty, which was established by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, which I think is still supported by Parliament, is, in fact, a fairer system of compensation than this other system which we are considering today—compensation according to loss of earnings. Anyone who became in any way concerned with the changes involved in the 1946 Act and the transition from the workmen's compensation scheme to the Industrial Injuries scheme must be tempted to examine again the possibility of some merger between the two schemes, and the transition between the two is obviously still very much with us, as the hon. Gentleman clearly showed when introducing his Bill.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Bedwellty that I have very seriously considered myself in the rôle of match-maker between the two schemes, if not actually the functionary to bring about the marriage. I should myself have liked to see them brought together. I have considered very seriously the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), whether there could be some permanent way of settling the matter rather than these periodic attempts of the hon. Member and others to deal with it as time makes further changes necessary.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) said that his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) had investigated this matter very carefully when he introduced the new scheme in 1946. I think that we should all like to pay tribute to the care with which the right hon. Gentleman examined the possibility of making this merger; but, when any of us look at it at the present day, we are bound to conclude that the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman found at the time, and, I think I am right in saying, found to be insurmountable, have not become any less in the ten years which have elapsed since 1946.
The fundamental difficulty of assimilation seems to be that, on the one hand, we have some men with a small loss of function and a serious loss of earn-

ings, and, on the other, other men with large functional disability, perhaps even 100 per cent., who have suffered very little or no loss of earnings. Therefore, it seems to me that any attempt to try to compensate for loss of earnings those who are at present compensated for functional loss, or to do the opposite and compensate for loss of function those who are at present compensated for loss of earnings, is bound to affect unfavourably many who are at present enjoying the system of compensation which will be the one not chosen in future as the basis for all. Therefore, any attempt at any compulsory assimilation, I think hon. Members will agree, would be bound to be unpopular.
The alternative to that—the possibility of men being given the option of transferring, if it suited them, from one system of compensation to another—obviously is one that raises very great difficulties. In the first place, for those who were trying to improve their compensation for loss of earnings under the workmen's compensation scheme by going to the other method of compensation, the results of the Industrial Injuries Board, which examines them for the purposes of the new compensation, may at first appear to be unfavourable, until the question of the special hardship allowance is taken into consideration.
I think that we would all agree that by the time that that question of special hardship allowance had been considered, it would be very difficult at that point to reverse steps and cancel the whole process of this attempted transfer from one system to another. The question whether there would be a net gain for those people trying to transfer from one system to another would be most uncertain, and, as probably hon. Members would agree, in the majority of the cases it would be very difficult to predict in advance whether a man, by transferring from one system to the other, would in the end be better off than before.
Another problem is that medical boards would have to satisfy themselves as to how much of the disability they found to be present was attributable to the old accident, which might have occurred a long time before; and this at a time in 1958 when no records and possibly no witnesses would be available


to corroborate that degree of disability which was due to the accident. But even if all these objections could be overcome, the position of men on workmen's compensation is a fluctuating one, though it is changing less at present than it has changed in the past.
At one moment there might be advantage to these men to transfer to the Industrial injuries scheme but at another, in changed economic conditions and with varying figures of compensation, the potential compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts might be greater than the benefit under the Industrial Injuries scheme. Therefore, as, clearly, it would be impossible to allow continued transfer from one scheme to another and back again according to where the advantage would be, and it would be impossible to find methods by which former employers could commute liabilities which happened to exist at the time of transfer, it would be so difficult as to be impossible to allow this option for these pre-1948 cases to move in the one direction. It would undermine the Industrial Injuries scheme, because those injured after 1948 would not have the opportunity of moving in the opposite direction.

Mr. Finch: The Bill does not ask for any of this.

Mr. Wood: No, it does not, but this was mentioned not only by the hon. Member but by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, who discussed the possibility of some means of merging the two schemes. I have only tried to repeat, as I think the right hon. Member for Llanelly has repeated in the past, that the difficulties which were present in the right hon. Gentleman's mind have not become less and a permanent solution on this basis is no easier today than it was ten years ago.
The Bill has a variety of objects, as the hon. Member for Newark has said. It widens the definition of incapacity for employment by increasing the disregard. It also introduces a wife's allowance in certain cases, under Clause 4. But the main purpose is, first, to pay from the Industrial Injuries Fund increased supplementation to the totally incapacitated, and a new supplement of 35s. to the partially incapacitated on maximum rate, and, secondly, to pay a supplement of 15s. not only to the partially incapaci-

tated on less than the maximum but also to the "latents", provided that their disability is 10 per cent. or more.
This question of total incapacity for work undoubtedly represents a tragedy of some kind. It either represents a severe injury or a crippling illness, with which all of us feel great sympathy. There is no one here who does not admire the determination with which the hon. Member for Newark and other hon. Members, with their wide knowledge and experience of these matters, have attempted, and are attempting, to make life a little easier for these men who have suffered grievously in the past. I am sure that none of us wishes that the totally incapacitated should suffer hardship.
As the hon. Member for Newark said, it was in order to relieve hardship which my right hon. Friend believed them to be suffering in 1956 that the Government introduced the supplementation Bill in that year. On that occasion I remember the hon. Gentleman saying that the Bill succeeded an infant which he had tried to bring into the world. Today we see him again in the rôle of a potential parent. For reasons which I shall give in a minute I feel unable to recommend to the House that this baby of his should be allowed to survive infancy. I cannot today give the undertaking, which I am sure he would like me to give, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions will be able quickly to follow the excellent example of fatherhood which the hon. Gentleman so consistently sets.
I will give the reasons, because it is not lightly that I say it, and I want to make my reasons and my right hon. Friend's thought clear. The rates of workmen's compensation totals were last raised fifteen years ago in 1943. As the House knows the rates were 40s. for the single man, 50s. for the married man and 55s. for a married man if he had a child. Those rates were increased by the 17s. 6d. supplement in 1956 to 57s. 6d., 67s. 6d. and 72s. 6d. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedwellty quoted from my right hon. Friend's speech on 15th May, 1956, and pointed out that the Minister had said that the payment which the old cases were receiving was out of line, after the previous increase in the rates payable to those who had suffered industrial


injuries, with payments under the Industrial Injuries Act. Hon. Members will no doubt remember, however, that there were two considerations which persuaded my right hon. Friend to take the action he did in that year.
The first consideration was that there was real hardship among the totally incapacitated because of the fall in the real value of their compensation. The second, as he has rightly pointed out, was the consideration that there had become a discrepancy between the workmen's compensation and the industrial injury rates. That discrepancy was, in fact, one pointer to the hardship, and it guided my right hon. Friend in the selection of the figure for the supplementation of 17s. 6d. It is true that the workmen's compensation rates and the industrial injury rates have again become separated as a result of the most recent increases. It is necessary to find out whether, and to what degree, these old cases can be said to suffer hardship. As the hon. Members know, these cases share in changes which were made at the same time in the rates of National Insurance benefit.
I think I should add to what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend's speech in May, 1956, by reading a little further. My right hon. Friend said:
… we ought not to put on the Industrial Injuries Fund … a charge in respect of an injury not within the scope of that Fund,. except where we are really satisfied that some real hardship or real injustice arises.
He finished by saying:
In other words, we ought not to do this merely to obtain exact symmetry or equality, but only where there is a point of substance." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1912.]
The aim of the Bill—I do not criticise it for this—is to achieve this exact symmetry or equality, but on the point of hardship I cannot really say that a married man receiving workmen's compensation and other benefits totalling £7 7s. 6d., excluding the possible £3 10s. constant attendance allowance if he is helpless, and, therefore, completely in need of care —which would bring him to £10 17s. 6d. —can accurately be described as suffering hardship.
Hon. Members will agree that it has never been possible to achieve any kind of parity between workmen's compensation and industrial injury rates. I am

aware that the supplement was guided generally by the 67s. 6d. rate, but there has never been a way of equating these rates because there is no way of equating compensation for loss of earnings and compensation for loss of faculty, and if workmen's compensation rates and industrial injury rates were brought together it would not necessarily be fair because of the dissimilar bases on which the two systems are founded.
Having spoken for some time about the totally incapacitated, I now wish to deal with the partially incapacitated, who were particularly mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedwellty. I know of old his sympathy with them and his great disappointment that they were not included within the terms of the 1956 Measure. It is the second main object of the Bill to pay supplementation to those who are partially incapacitated. Within the maxima of 40s., 50s. and 55s., the rates of compensation for the partially incapacitated are a proportion of loss of earnings due to their injury. The loss of earnings is the difference between what the man would now be earning in his job if he had not had an accident and what he is able to earn after his accident.
The proposals in the Bill are different for the partially incapacitated on compensation at maximum rates and the partially incapacitated on compensation at less than the maximum rates. To take first the problem of the partially incapacitated on maximum rates—it is extremely difficult to be accurate about the numbers, and I was very interested in the figures which were produced by the hon. Member for Newark and the hon. Member for Bedwellty, particularly in relation to South Wales—my best estimate would be that there are about 9,000 partially incapacitated on maximum rates. Most of them, I believe, are married, and so they are receiving 50s. or 55s.—in most cases, probably, 50s.
On the other side, under the Industrial Injuries scheme men may be receiving industrial injuries benefit of 85s. But a very large proportion of industrial injury pensioners are receiving 20 per cent. or less disablement benefit, which with the addition of the maximum rate of special hardship allowance brings them to 51s. at the most, and less according to their lower assessment of disability.


Seventeen shillings or 20 per cent. plus 34s., equals, I hope, 51s.
They, therefore, are among the people who must be compared with the partially incapacitated on maximum rate who are receiving 50s. Under the Bill payments to the partially incapacitated on maximum rate would be increased to 85s.—indeed, 90s. to a married man with a child; either 50s. plus 35s. or 55s. plus 35s. These payments would be increased to 85s. and 90s. however slight the functional disability that the man had.
I am in the difficulty that if the House acclaimed functional disability as the fairest means of compensation in 1946—and I think the House still agrees that it is the fairest—then I cannot believe that it is right to reward a considerable number of people, as the Bill would, whose functional disability is comparatively small, so much more handsomely than those who have a much larger functional disability, especially when those who have the larger functional disability have contributed to the fund which is to make the payments and those who have the less functional disability have not contributed to the fund. That is my fundamental difficulty.
I was very much interested in the arguments of the hon. Member for Bedwellty about the partially incapacitated, particularly their difficulties of employment, but the partially incapacitated, even those on maximum rate, are by definition men not prevented from earning by their injuries. Their injuries may have contributed to their difficulties but they do not prevent them from earning, because had their injuries prevented them from earning they would not have been partially incapacitated.
In general—I underline the words "in general"—these partially incapacitated have benefited by changes in wages since 1943. They have benefited, unlike the totally incapacitated, who have not had the chance of these benefits. Another difficulty is that a supplement as proposed in the Bill for these men would increase the substantial advantage that the partially incapacitated at present have over the totally incapacitated, who have not had the chance to benefit from these wage increases.
As for the other partially incapacitated, on less than maximum compensation—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Or no compensation at all.

Mr. Wood: I was coming to those later. As for the partially incapacitated on less than maximum compensation they have benefited, like others, through higher wages and increased insurance benefits. I am bearing in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty. He spoke about compensation falling below the rise in the living costs because the difference between pre-accident wages and post-accident wages had changed in proportion. But if that has happened because the pre-accident wages have increased less in proportion than the post-accident wages, this surely means, does it not, that the injury is less serious in terms of earning capacity than it used to be? That is the only deduction I can make.
There is the further point that the 15s. supplement which is proposed in the Bill would make a man better off than he was before his injury—if his loss of earnings was anything less than 45s.; I think I am right in saying that, and hon. Members can almost certainly find examples—if the loss of earnings is less than 45s. and therefore the compensation is less than 30s.
I cannot believe that we should be justified in making payments from the Industrial Injuries Fund in order to make those who had not contributed to it better off than they were before their accidents. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly remarked a few moments ago, Clause 2 (3) proposes payments of 15s. to all men with a potential claim, even if they have not present loss of earnings.
This brings me to the question of the "latents." The hon. Member for Newark rightly pointed out that many men with latent claims are functionally very severely disabled but are not suffering, at present, from any loss of earnings. If they were they would not come within the definition of "latent." If, as the Bill proposes, those with a disablement of 10 per cent. or more, but with no loss of earnings, were to receive a payment of 15s. a week, they would be receiving compensation according to their loss of faculty rather than their loss of earnings—because the loss of earnings is not present, and the loss of earnings has always been the basis for compensation in the old cases.
The proposal therefore seems to be a very substantial move away from the basic principle established in 1946. I cannot believe that it would be right to accept a proposal of this kind, which must have the effect of weakening and blurring the principle and revitalising and prolonging the inconsistencies which, right from the time when the hon. Member moved the Second Reading, have been at the root of our discussion today.

Mr. Finch: In the 1956 Bill the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance provided that the 17s. 6d. supplement should be paid to certain types of latent cases. In the case of a man who accepted a lump sum after 1956, the 17s. 6d. supplement was still payable. That is a typical latent case.

Mr. Wood: I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but I think that he would agree that the proposal in the Bill goes very much wider. In fact, it proposes payments of 15s. to every person with a latent claim, so long as his disability is more than a certain percentage. That is a very wide proposal.
I find it almost impossible to discover how many of these latent cases there might be. I notice that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance, was speaking in the debate in April, 1953—which was initiated by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones)—he mentioned a figure of 50,000, but I have no means of knowing whether or not that is an underestimate. I should think that there was a good chance that it was an underestimate. Therefore, on that basis, although at the medical boards which the Bill proposes some of these latents would admittedly be found to be less than 10 per cent. disabled and therefore ineligible, the supplement of 15s. a week to all those with latent claims—if I have calculated it correctly—would add up to about £1½ million a year.
This is not the full cost, or the full extent of the difficulty of the proposal. In order to receive the 15s. supplement, latents must have a disability of 10 per cent. Therefore, they must be boarded. This would not only be costly—as the hon. Member recognises in Clause 6,

which he admits was forced upon him —but would make it extremely difficult for medical boards to assess disablement in regard to very old injuries.
As hon. Members know, the industrial injuries board takes place pretty soon after the injury when adequate records are available, and assessment, therefore, is comparatively easy. Quite apart from all these considerations, the Clause as drafted at the moment would give—and I think one hon. Member mentioned this —the allowance to those who have settled claims against future liabilities by means of a lump sum. If the sponsors of the Bill really intend this—and I gather that they do—it not only raises the question of whether it is proper to reopen settled claims which both sides seem to have agreed were settled some time ago, but also the administrative problems of the proposal, which would be extremely difficult.
I want to say a word about the earnings rule, because the hon. Gentleman particularly mentioned it. As he knows, under the 1956 Act the allowance is payable to those entitled to weekly payments of workmen's compensation who are, because of the relevant injury, incapable of work and who are likely to remain so for thirteen weeks or more. The definition of "incapability" is if the disability prevents a man earning more than £52 a year. This £52 limit, as hon. Members also know, is the limit for the unemployability supplement payable not only with industrial injury disablement benefit, but also with war disablement pensions. It was introduced, so I understand, in order to prevent any severely disabled man being discouraged from taking therapeutic work which would eventually do him good.
This was one of the questions considered by the Piercy Committee of which for some time, until I was forcibly removed, I had the honour to be a member. I had nothing to do with its Report, apart from joining in some interesting discussions in the earlier stages, but I was interested, when the Report was finally published, to see that the Committee came to the conclusion that it did not think that the figure of £52 was too low. I myself have often investigated this problem, and it is a problem about which hon. Members probably know.
Many of those interested in the war pensions provisions feel as strongly as does the hon. Gentleman opposite and as do other hon. Members about this figure which it is proposed to amend in the Bill. I cannot help feeling that the man who is capable of earning £156 in a year cannot really be considered to be incapable of work. I have still to find substantial examples of those who are, in fact, discouraged by the £52 earnings rule. I should be very interested if hon. Members would let me have examples of this kind because it would help me very much in my thinking about the future. I can say that neither the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister nor my own mind is closed on the subject of the £52 earning limit if that limit can be convincingly shown to be frustrating the object which, as I have just said, it was originally intended to secure.
I propose to stop in a few moments because I believe that some other hon. Members want to speak, but I have been asked one or two questions about the cost. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge, I calculate—but, again, this is very largely guess work—that the cost of these proposals about which I have been speaking this afternoon and the other proposals in the Bill, such as the wife's allowance, and so on, and the expenses of administration which will be involved, would be between £3 million and £4 million. I believe the cost of boarding alone would be about £250,000.
I hesitate to quote from my own speeches; in fact I do not make many. But in one I made during the Committee stage of the National Insurance Bill last November I explained why the increase of contributions which the Government proposed was necessary to cover the cost of benefits. Various questions have been asked this afternoon about the Industrial Injuries Fund. It is still increasing at a nice rate and the balance at present stands at £150 million. It has always been realised that this balance must be built up so that later on when we have grown older, in the 1970's and 1980's it will be able to stand the greater demand put upon it. I say in good faith, having made inquiries, that it has been estimated that if we are to keep the Industrial Injuries Fund solvent on the new rates of benefit, we must try to produce a balance

ultimately of about £500 million, so that we have still a long way to go.
I said in November that any proposal to reduce the contributions under the Bill —and the proposals in this Bill would increase the obligation on the fund and therefore have similar results—would prevent the fund from continuing to increase and that would mean that early in the next century the fund might be reduced to nothing.
It is difficult to know the precise financial effects of the proposals in this Bill in the years ahead. I admit that they, would be a diminishing liability, but as I said, starting at £4 million they would be far from negligible. Contributors to the Industrial Injuries scheme already provide more than £1 million to people outside the scheme and I find it difficult to justify asking them for more, particularly when they will be placed at a disadvantage compared with a great many who have not contributed to the Industrial Injuries Fund. For the reasons I have given I cannot recommend the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, but its introduction has enabled us again to discuss the difficulties involved by the existence, side by side, of the workmen's compensation scheme and the ten-year old Industrial Injuries scheme.
The hon. Member for Newark made his strongest case in favour of the totally incapacitated. I need hardly assure him that my right hon. Friend will watch their position closely. At present, he is not convinced that they are suffering hardship in the sense that persuaded him eighteen months ago to make substantial payments out of the Industrial Injuries Fund. But he will watch the position of those receiving workmen's compensation both in relation to economic conditions and benefits available under the National Insurance Scheme. Although We feel unable to agree with the proposals in this Bill, I can say to hon. Members that if my right hon. Friend was convinced that hardship existed he would certainly do his best to relieve it.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary began his speech by saying that he had always


been impressed by the complications surrounding workmen's compensation. Having listened to him, it is obvious that he has mastered them very well and we congratulate him on his erudition. The hon. Gentleman used these complications to mask the principle of this Bill, which is that we should try to get equal terms for those injured before 5th July, 1948, with those injured afterwards. All the details and complications to which the hon. Gentleman referred provide no answer to the strong humanitarian case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) and his supporters.
I suggest that we regard this matter in the same way as we regard war disability pensions paid to war pensioners. There are similarities between the two schemes. The industrial casualty and the war casualty are assessed by the medical board on the same principle. There is the same level of pension for the same degree of disability, similar supplementary pensions and so on. The great difference at the moment is that when we consider the war disability cases, we do not make any distinction between the man injured in the 1914 war and the man injured in the 1939 war. It would be indefensible in principle if we made that distinction.

Mr. Wood: The difference is that the war pensioners in the 1914 war were compensated on the basis of loss of function. The system in 1939 merely followed that pattern. The new system of industrial injuries in 1946 changed the system entirely. That is the real difference.

Mr. Prentice: I appreciate that point, but that is what makes it complicated and makes the task of trying to do justice to the older pensioner more difficult. The hon. Gentleman went into those complications at great length, but they do not excuse us from making an attempt to get equality of treatment. If we cannot get it, we must get something like equality. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark is trying to do by his Bill. If it was right in 1956 to bring in a supplement of 17s. 6d. for the totally disabled man, it is surely right to bring in a Measure now to bring the totally disabled man up to the rate of the man covered by the Industrial Injuries Act.
The position of the partially disabled people is more complicated still. It might be true, as the hon. Gentleman told the House, that by introducing the Measure some partially disabled people covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts would get a little more than some people partially disabled covered by the Industrial Injuries Act, but we have to balance that fact against the fact that at the moment we are doing a major injustice to the great majority of people who are partially disabled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Unless there is a loss of earnings, they get no compensation at all at present.
The most respectable point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman was when he said, "We are doing quite well already." He pointed out that the National Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1957, which went through this House recently raises the unemployability supplement and the constant-attendance allowance, but will not help those who have not qualified for these allowances. Their number is very small, a matter of a few hundreds in each case. The majority of people do not come into this category and get no corresponding benefits.
The hon. Gentleman went on in that section of his speech to talk about "real hardship." He asked whether there was real hardship in the case that his right hon. Friend had found in 1956. Why should we subject these people, the older industrial casualties, to this special test of severe hardship, to which we do not subject people since 1948, or the war pensioners?
The hon. Gentleman referred to the insurance principle, in one of the arguments that he used and which was also used by his hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby).
The Industrial Injuries Fund was based on a new principle in 1948. I wish briefly to refer to three reasons why I think all the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter were wrong. First, the insurance principle has already been breached. When the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Bill was introduced, benefits were paid from the Fund to people who had not subscribed to it. Under the 1956 Act again benefits were paid from the Fund to people who had not subscribed to it. This Bill would merely extend that breach in the principle.
There has been a lot of argument about what the cost would be to the Insurance Fund. It would be a tiny amount compared with the scale of the Fund at the moment. My hon. Friend calculated that there were about 40,000 getting benefit at the moment under the workmen's compensation Acts. It is true that he wants to add the latent cases and we do not know how many of them there will be. If the Government were really afraid of the latent cases they could accept the Bill and introduce an Amendment to deal with that provision. I am not saying I want the Government to do so, but that is a course they could take.
If we asked the millions of work people who subscribed to the Industrial Injuries Fund, whose fund it is, their opinion on whether these old cases should be denied the same justice as others are getting, we feel sure that an overwhelming majority of them would agree with the principles of the Bill put forward by my hon. Friend. The standard of life we enjoy today has been built up by the efforts of people working in industry in the past and by the capital development, the development of skills and standards which they have achieved. The casualties caused in that process deserve as much consideration as do war casualties.
In mining, on the docks and in factories thousands have suffered industrial injuries and diseases. Many would not have suffered under modern conditions. Many of them have lost limbs in machinery which, with modern fencing methods, would not have been lost. Many miners have suffered silicosis who would not contract that disease today because of the special measures taken against it.
The House and the community owe a debt to these people. If some of the complications mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary are valid they are reasons why the Government should accept the Bill and attempt to amend it in Committee. No reason has been put forward this afternoon against the central principle of the Bill, that we should give the old casualties of industry the same treatment as the newer ones.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: We have had a very interesting debate, and I must congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) on bringing

this important question before the House.
At the same time, we must realise that he and other hon. Members who have spoken are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Workmen's compensation schemes under various Acts which came to an end in 1948 were based on a very sound principle. The amount of injury a man had suffered had no direct relation to the award made against the employer by whom he was employed at the time of the accident. In my view that was an excellent principle. It was changed for what, speaking entirely for myself, I regard as a worse principle—that little regard should be paid to what the man had lost but that one should merely look to see what he had lost from the doctor's point of view. That is why the whole matter was handed over to medical boards and functional disability was talked about—those long words we are so fond of using to discuss the changes which were made.
Those two systems are quite irreconcilable. I have listened carefully to this debate to see if one could gain an idea of how many of the old cases there are. There cannot be many now, ten years after the Act came into force. One also has to remember that a large number of those cases have been redeemed. That is to say, whether the sufferer wanted it or not, his employer had full power to go to the court and to say to the man, "I am going to give you a lump sum whether you like it or not and there is an end to my liability towards you." With the exception, perhaps, of very doubtful wording in Clause 3, I see no provision at all in this Bill for that type of case. It may well be that persons who have had their claims redeemed would—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 21st March.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (AMENDMENT) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

FIRST OFFENDERS BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Friday, 2nd May.

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Mr. Lagden added to the Committee on Public Petitions.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

RAILWAYS (AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I shall not readily forget the last occasion when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and I debated the affairs of British Railways on the Adjournment. It was the night of 4th December, the night of the Lewisham rail disaster. Many of my constituents were killed in that crash.
I do not intend this afternoon to suggest that the general safety record of British Railways is bad. Our railways are safe railways. In 1954 and 1956 no passengers were killed at all, and compared with our bloodstained roads the record of passenger miles per casualty is quite outstanding. Train accidents, even comparatively minor ones, make headlines because they are rare events.
On the whole, the story of safety is a good one, but one chapter makes rather curious reading. I refer to the chapter on automatic train control. By this time, the whole House and most of the country knows something about automatic train control. There are several systems but, generally speaking, they are a device which warns the driver of a train by buzzer, siren or bell that he is passing a signal that shows there is danger ahead. The majority of these systems can bring a train automatically to a halt if the driver ignores their warning.
Soon after the turn of the century a number of bright young men developed A.T.C. on the Great Western Railway. It was a tremendous success. In 1920 there was set up a high powered committee to investigate A.T.C., and it recommended the general adoption of A.T.C. on all British railway lines. Five years later another committee recommended the general introduction of A.T.C. and specifically praised the Great Western system. I refer to paragraph 3 of Section 9 of that Report.
From the moment of the report of the first committee all Ministers of Transport have made obeisance to the general idea of automatic train control, but not very much has happened. Before the Second World War there were one or two experiments, but in general it is true to say that the Great Western Railway had automatic train control and the rest did not have automatic train control. A number of senior officials of the old Great Western Railway system believed that the refusal to instal the Western system of automatic train control generally throughout the country was largely based on jealousy; because that system was known as the Great Western system.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools): Let us get the record right. Even after 1922 there were many scores of miles of the Great Western Railway which did not have automatic train control. Only the principal routes had it.

Mr. Goodhart: Yes, I believe about 65 per cent. of the Great Western line was protected by A.T.C.
Then came nationalisation, and a great many people thought that with nationalisation jealousy would be swept away and that the introduction of A.T.C. would be general. Indeed, there was a great scheme put forward and pronounced upon by British railways, that they were going to spend some £6 million on the quick installation of A.T.C. on the chief lines throughout the country.
Sir Alan Mount, Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways at the time of nationalisation, said that it was time to do away with all this fiddle-faddle and to get on with the installation of this valuable system, but the years from 1948 to 1952 turned out to be the years that the locusts ate. There were experiments.


hut as the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways stated:
Four years were taken to bring the prototype equipment to its present advanced state.
The Western system had been rejected. It so happened that the development of this prototype to an advanced stage coincided with the Harrow train disaster. Then there was a surge of interest in automatic train control, which could have prevented that disaster. In his report on the Harrow crash the Chief inspecting Officer said:
Thus, after all these years, there are now firm prospects that work will be started on the extension of Warning Control to all the important routes of the country within a measurable time.
In those four years the prototype had reached an advanced stage of development.
In answer to a Parliamentary Question on 26th January, 1953, the then Minister of Transport took a hopeful but slightly cautious line. He said:
I am anxious that people should realise that there must be experiments. I do not mean experiments running into years, but with these production types there will probably have to be some six months or so of hard investigation as to how far they are proving effective. I am very hopeful that after that we shall be in the realm of definite achievement"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 659.]
That was on 22nd January, 1953. Those words proved, to put it mildly, to be a little bit optimistic. Exactly three years later, on 25th January, 1956, a Question about automatic train control was asked in the House. The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation was asked—
to make a statement as to the reason for the delay in adopting throughout British Railways the system of automatic train control which has been working satisfactorily on the Great Western section for so many years.
The Minister of Transport replied:
The system of automatic train control used on the former Great Western Railway has certain technical disadvantages which precludes its universal adoption on British Railways, especially on electrified lines, though it has been very successful under steam operation. The British Transport Commission has been developing an improved system which has been under trial on the east coast main line between New Barnet and Huntingdon for some time. The development of this new equipment has reached an advanced stage and the trial stretch is being extended to cover the 210 track miles of both the lines between King's Cross and Grantham. The ground equipment has already been installed on the down line between King's Cross and Peterborough.

Then came the following supplementary question:
Is the Minister aware that there has never been any adequate explanation why this system has not been adopted on comparable stretches of railway either before or after nationalisation;
to which the Minister replied:
The explanation is that unfortunately the system used on the Great Western is not suitable for electrified lines. We are about to undertake a pilot scheme with the new system on a really workable length of main line." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 199–200.]
On 1st March, 1956, the technical advisers of the British Transport Commission wrote a letter to the Chief of General Duties, British Transport Commission, and I have a copy of the letter here and will read the relevant paragraphs to the House:
In reply to your letter of the 28th February, the purpose of Mr. Fraser's request is, as I understand it, summed up in paragraph 5, in which he asks that the Chief Inspecting Officer of the Ministry of Transport should now be asked to give his approval to the system on the grounds that the failure record is now thought to be sufficiently good to allow us to anticipate a favourable result.
On this aspect, I have no comments other than to say that the sooner the system is approved the better, from every point of view, as the performance rate is now as good as that on the Western Region system.
In other words, after eight years of nationalisation, we have now reached the point where we are proposing to ask approval of a system as good as that on the Western Region. I repeat, as good as that on the Western Region. I consider that that is an incredible performance—literally incredible.
There are one or two other points I should like to make. That letter was dated 1st March, 1956; in fact, approval for that system was not given until 1st November. The Minister of Transport, in his reply in January, 1956, said that the main objection to the Western Region system was that it could not be applied to electrified lines, but we find from the report of the Chief Inspecting Officer that A.T.C. has not been thoroughly tested on electrified lines.
Approval of the apparatus as adapted for use with the Westinghouse air brake on multiple unit electric trains must await the result of trials which are soon to be put in hand.
That was sixteen or seventeen months ago.
Now, I am happy to say, those trials have recently been put in hand on an electrified line and, perhaps, they will work out well. I very much hope so, because it is just on these multiple-unit electric trains that so many of my own constituents travel every day. But, as far as I know, there is not at the moment any plan to bring any protection to these trains by A.T.C. in the foreseeable future.
A long time has elapsed. This is a sad story. Either there has been massive inefficiency on the part of the British Transport Commission or there has been a decision by responsible men that the installing of A.T.C. was not really as urgent as many people thought, and they have been fobbing off Ministers with a lot of soft soap. I rather imagine that both considerations apply.
Now I understand that there is a shortage of staff on British Railways on the installation side for automatic train control.
Will the Transport Commission consider approaching the area electricity boards? At least one senior executive of one area board has seen the new A.T.C. system in operation. He has studied the installation and he has reported that his area board could very easily handle the widespread installation of this system. I should also like to know whether there is any chance of the new accelerated plan for automatic train control system, which has been announced, being extended to the mid-Kent area in which my constituency lies and which was so disastrously affected by the Lewisham crash.
I have said that there has been a disparity in the past between performance and statement. This record does not inspire confidence, but will the Minister agree to make a statement quarterly, giving details of new railway safety devices, and not merely A.T.C., installed, delivered or ordered during the preceding three months? It would be improper for me to comment upon any case which is now before the courts, but at the moment one man does stand in the dock. On the moral issue, perhaps he should not stand alone.

4.19 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member

for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) upon securing the Adjournment today to raise this very interesting topic. Whilst I congratulate him upon his interest in and enthusiasm for this topic, I have to explain that I cannot agree with all his conclusions, though I should like to welcome the comments with which he started on the good safety record of the railways.
I find that in the past forty-six years, during which time 698 formal inquiries took place into rail accidents, 1,599 people were killed. That number, serious though it is, is equivalent only to an average of four months' fatalities on the roads.
It is of interest to note that in the judgment of experts about 11 per cent. of these accidents could probably have been avoided if A.T.C. of the warning type had been fitted. It is also of interest to note that if that 11 per cent. of accidents had been saved, about 31 per cent. of the fatalities would have been avoided, because A.T.C., especially since it reduces the danger of an accident happening at high speed, tends to save the accident with very heavy casualties.
The figure of 11 per cent. helps to put into perspective the rest of the picture, in which the House may be interested, of what A.T.C. does. It is an important safety factor but, as we use it, it is a warning control system which operates when a distant signal is indicating caution, and a signal at stop lies ahead. The operation results in a siren sounding in the engine cabin and an automatic, moderate application of the brake.
To fill in the picture I should add that there is a stop control system which applies the brake fully where it is fitted, if and when a stop signal is passed at danger. This system is used by London Transport on underground trains, where the speed and the brakes of the trains are uniform, but it would not be suitable for main line work, where speed and braking capacity of trains is widely variable.
Thus the effect of A.T.C., as we know it, is to give the driver of the train a strong additional warning, including some application of the brake, that he is approaching a signal ahead set at danger. It still remains for the driver to bring his train to a halt if the signal is still at stop when he reaches it.
The other features of special safety that go with A.T.C. are, first, track circuiting. This is a further safety device and it works by dividing the track into sections insulated from each other, each section having a low voltage current passed continually round it, so that when a train comes into the section it has the effect of short-circuiting the current which goes through the wheels and axles instead of round the circuit of the whole section. This short-circuiting of the current operates a switch gear called a track relay. Thus, track circuiting serves primarily to record that a train is in a particular section of the track and this shows, of course, in the signal box and thus provides a basis for many safety signalling functions. To give an obvious example, it automatically holds at danger signals covering the track behind the train to protect it from another train coming up behind it into the same section.
Colour light signals, of which we have spoken more than once here, consist of the conventional system: green for go, yellow for warning, and red for stop, which we are familiar with on the roads, with the refinement in some cases of the double yellow. The advantages of the colour light signal are, first, that it is much easier to see, especially at night and in fog. Unlike the old-fashioned semaphoring signal, which is high up in the air and lit only by an oil lamp, the colour light is on a level with the driver and can be seen even in bad weather conditions.
Secondly, being electrically controlled, it can be linked with A.T.C. and track circuits and the control board in the signal box. Thirdly, combined with power-operated boxes, it makes a large-scale and valuable economy in signalling manpower where, up to now, we have been very short-handed. Fourthly, it allows a most valuable increase in line occupation.
Especially for the interest of my hon. Friend, I should record that, despite the shock of the Lewisham accident with its heavy toll of fatalities, the colour light system which has been operating on that area of line, which carries the densest traffic in the world, has had an accident-free record for nearly thirty years. That underlines what a very valuable safety device the modern colour light system of signalling is.
It will thus be seen that the A.T.C., track circuiting and colour light signals, while each is a valuable safety device in itself, can eventually link up and combine to give the maximum traffic safety. But although they greatly help drivers and reduce strain, especially in bad weather conditions, they do not eliminate the final human element. It still remains for drivers to pay strict attention to signals, visual and A.T.C., to have an expert knowledge of the road on which they are travelling, and to use their judgment in an emergency if there is to be safety on the line. The same applies to signalmen in employing skill, taking care and applying full accuracy.
I think that serves to put in perspective what A.T.C. does. It is extremely valuable, but it is by no means the only essential safety measure. Briefly, the history of A.T.C. was that it started with the enterprise and initiative of the Great Western Railway in 1905, but it was not until 1930 that the Great Western completed the equipment of the main lines, and many of the early years were spent in working out the system. The warmest congratulations are due to the Great Western Railway; it was a great achievement.
During the 'thirties the Hudd system was also evolved. That was a non-contact magnetic system. It was tried out experimentally on the London Midland and Scottish Railway. It was not until 1947 that the Hudd system was finally approved by the Minister of Transport.
As my hon. Friend said, the British Transport Commission made a policy decision in 1948 that in the interests of rail safety it would make a wide extension of A.T.C., colour light signals and track circuits. The A.T.C. design, it decided, was to be one which would combine the best of both the Great Western Railway system and the Hudd system. My hon. Friend feels that the Great Western system was not given all the attention that it should have been and that there was failure there. That is not so. The Great Western system, admirable though it is for a steam line, is not entirely suitable for an electric line. There is a risk with an electric line of stray currents giving a false signal in the cab by energising the alarm, which is worked magnetically.

Mr. D. Jones: It is not only the line on which the train is travelling which must not be electrified. If there are parallel lines which are electrified there is a danger with the Great Western system of the current seeping through and causing a wrong signal.

Mr. Nugent: My hon. Friend can certainly accept my assurance without any doubt that, technically admirable though the Great Western system was, it was not suitable for electric lines. Furthermore, electric trains do not have sufficient clearance between the A.T.C. ramps and the undercarriage. Finally, the heavy mechanical parts of the G.W.R. contact system were by no means ideal to be made permanent and universal throughout the country.
The Commission was convinced that it could find a non-contact magnetic system better than the Hudd system which would finally be better all round. It is true that it has taken some time to develop it. In 1949 the initial trials were carried out, and from 1950 onwards full-scale trials were carried out on the East Coast line. Many difficulties were encountered, but these are only to be expected.
The Hudd system took ten years to establish. There is no record how long the Great Western system took. I am reliably assured that seven-and-a-half years is by no means an excessive time to—as the engineers put it—"get the bugs" out of a new system of this sort. It has to operate in all weathers under heavy vibration and it has to operate infallibly—I repeat, infallibly—otherwise it is no use at all. I assure my hon. Friend that seven-and-a-half years is by no means an unreasonable time. It was certainly tried out on the four-rail electric line and it will very shortly be fully convened to the third-rail system, too. It certainly will not be held up in any way on that account.
My hon. Friend's suggestion that the Electricity Board could take over part of the work of installation conflicts with the general policy of the railways that their rail signal engineers never allow

outside contractors to do work on existing systems where the lines are in operation. They bring in contractors to do new work, a complete new installation, but the danger of an outside contractor inadvertently doing something which interferes with the existing safety system is so great that it cannot be risked. For very sound policy reasons, therefore, it would not be possible to accept the help of outside contractors.
Turning to priorities, the routes which will receive the earliest attention will be those carrying the greatest train frequency and with the greatest train speed. My hon. Friend's neighbourhood, with its very good system of colour light signalling, will obviously not be among the earliest.
I am afraid that quarterly reports would require a great deal of extra work and would not be justified. My right hon. Friend will receive very full reports in the Annual Report of the British Transport Commission and from our own inspecting officers of railways, and I am sure that that will keep him fully in the picture, but the Commission has made it plain that the capital restrictions are in no way slowing up the programme of A.T.C. installation. In fact, the Commission hopes to accelerate it. It realises that this is a very valuable safety measure and it has every intention to push ahead with it as fast as it can, in conjunction with colour light signals and track circuiting, which are both equally important in their way. When we get all three together we can say that we have taken such steps as we can, but at the end of the day we depend on the driver's skill, attention and responsibility to see that the train gets safely home.
I will conclude by a word of congratulation on the wonderful record which our drivers and our railways have provided of safe travelling in very heavily used conditions in this country over many years.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Five o'clock.